It's Raining Frogs and Fish
What's the real explanation of frogs and fish raining from the sky? Hint: It's not waterspouts.
Filed under Paranormal
| Skeptoid #170 September 08, 2009 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
Today we're going to run in panic from a meteorological downpour only Bartholomew and his Oobleck could appreciate: Storms of frogs and fish falling from the sky! For at least 200 years, newspapers and books have published accounts of people being pelted by huge numbers of frogs and fish coming down during rainstorms, or even sometimes out of a clear blue sky.
|
In 1901, a rainstorm in Minneapolis, MN produced frogs to a depth of several inches, so that travel was said to be impossible. Fish famously fell from the sky in Singapore in 1861, and again over a century later in Ipswich, Australia in 1989. Residents in southern Greece awoke one morning in 1981 to find that a shower of frogs had blanketed their village. Golfers in Bournemouth, England found herring all over their course after a light shower in 1948. In 1901, a huge rainstorm doused Tiller's Ferry, SC, and covered it with catfish as well as water, to the point that fish were found swimming between the rows of a cotton field. In 1953, Leicester, MA was hit with a downpour of frogs and toads of all sorts, even choking the rain gutters on the roofs of houses. The stories go on and on: More frogs in Missouri in 1873 and Sheffield, England in 1995, and more fish in Alabama in 1956.
How could such things happen? Obviously frogs and fish are heavier than air and can't evaporate up into clouds, nor can they suspend themselves up there to breed. Almost every printed version of these tales offers a single explanation: That a waterspout somewhere sucks the animals out of some water and lifts them up into the clouds, from where they later fall back to land. This explanation is so ubiquitous that even the Encyclopedia Britannica suggests it as the only offered hypothesis.
I've always had problems with the waterspout story, and the more you look into it, the poorer an explanation it turns out to be. Waterspouts come in two varieties, just like tornadoes on land. The first and most common is a non-tornadic waterspout, which is a local fair-weather phenomenon, akin to a dust devil you might see over farmland. They have little or no effect on the surface of the water. The second much rarer type is the full-blown supercell tornadic waterspout. The decreased air pressure inside a tornadic waterspout can actually raise the water level by as much as half a meter, but water itself is not sucked up inside. The visible column of a waterspout is made up of condensation, and is transparent. The high winds will kick up a lot of spray from wavelets on the surface, but if you look at pictures of waterspouts, you'll see that this spray is thrown outward, not sucked up inward. Just below the surface of the water, things are undisturbed. Waterspouts simply do not have any mechanism by which they might reach down into the water, collect objects, and then transport them upward into the sky.
If you've watched video of destructive tornadoes on land, you've seen this same effect. When a tornado rips through a building or a town, you'll see debris kicked up into the air, often quite high, from where it takes a ballistic trajectory outward. Never do objects ascend the inner column, because there is simply no mechanism inside for doing that. It's not an elevator; it's a destructive force scraping stuff off the surface and throwing it upward and outward. Stuff might take a lap or two around the column while it's being snatched up and tossed. Debris goes everywhere; groups of related objects are never picked up from one place, kept together, and neatly deposited somewhere else. Certainly there is no mechanism that might carry a group of objects way up into the clouds, transport them laterally great distances through fair weather while somehow counteracting gravity, and then suddenly release them in a single tight group to drop to the ground.
Not once in a single case of several dozen that I read was there ever a report of a tornado or waterspout in the vicinity, or even at all, no matter how far away. I conclude that waterspouts have no connection, either hypothetical or evidentiary, to the phenomenon of frogs, fish, or any other animals, falling out of the sky. There's a much better explanation that's well known to zoologists, but for reasons I can't fathom, is almost never put forward to explain these stories.
The thing is, we've got these stories repeated over and over again, and all of them, or almost all of them, are completely credulous. Nearly every author uncritically repeats the story, often giving the waterspout theory as a possible explanation. Almost never will you hear someone ask the question "Wait a minute; did this actually happen the way witnesses thought?" These authors don't know one of the fundamentals of critical examination: Before you try to explain a strange phenomenon, first see if the strange event ever really happened; or at least whether it happened the way it's been reported.
Drop a frog off a building, and unless it's extremely small, it goes splat; so undoubtedly, what people think they're seeing in these stories can't be what's actually going on. If the frog didn't come from the sky, could it have come from somewhere else?
Frogs do swarm naturally on occasion. It happens frequently enough that people start to correlate these events with other things that happened: Storms, earthquakes, celebrity deaths, what have you. It's been reported that frog swarms were correlated with both the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in California, and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China. Shortly thereafter, when frogs swarmed in Bakersfield, California, some called for earthquake preparedness. Needless to say, there was no earthquake; just a random population explosion of frogs. Sometimes these explosions can be dramatic. In 2004, four hurricanes hit Florida, making that state about the wettest it's ever been. The local species of frogs and toads all had a banner year, described by the Florida Museum of Natural History as a carpet.
Every spring and fall, frogs migrate between shallow breeding ponds and deeper lakes. Because they're amphibians and need to keep their skin moist, they migrate most often during rainstorms. In many cases, the day with the right conditions will come, and the whole frog population will move cross-country en masse, across roads, across properties, wherever it needs to go. When you look outside during a heavy rainstorm and you see thousands of frogs jumping everywhere all over the ground, the illusion that they're falling from the sky and bouncing can be quite convincing. A swarm of frogs looks like ping pong balls bouncing in a lottery machine. The fact that there usually aren't frogs here adds credibility to the illusion. Throw in a healthy dose of confirmation bias and some exaggerated second, third, and fourth hand reports, and you automatically end up with every imaginable detail like the frogs were choking rain gutters on top of buildings.
Although this explanation might satisfy the stories of frogs falling from the sky, what about fish? You don't find mass migrations of fish crossing overland, do you? Well, maybe not mass migrations, but believe it or not, there are fish species that occasionally take to the ground in search of better waters. There are many species of "walking fish" in the world. Mudskippers are probably the best known variety. In Florida in 2008, a school of about 30 walking catfish emerged from the sewer during a heavy storm and went slithering around on the street. The northern snakehead is another fish that can wriggle its way around on dry land. Throughout Africa and Asia are 36 species of climbing perches. They have a special organ that allows them to breathe air, and are able to walk using their gill plates, fins and tail, despite looking completely fishlike with no obvious ambulatory limbs. None of these fish move gracefully or even look like they have the ability. To the average witness, it's a live fish flopping around on the ground where no fish has any business being, and having fallen from the sky seems as good an explanation as any.
But they can't have fallen from the sky. Drop a fish off a building, and that's a dead fish. These fish are not reported as being burst open with their guts splattered out, but as flapping and squirming about, very much alive. An alternate explanation, that these fish are simply using their rare but well established ability to move overland, doesn't require us to accept some unexplained, implausible hypothesis even in the face of a lack of splattered-fish evidence.
We have no reason to think anyone actually observed the fish falling from the sky. All we know is that some people have reported finding live fish on dry ground. No doubt many of them couldn't think of any explanation other than the fish fell there, so they probably told the reporter "A bunch of fish fell out of the sky." At that point, the reporter had the story he was looking for, and needed to inquire no further.
Go back and read any story you've ever seen about frogs and fish falling from the sky, this time allowing for the possibility that the animals were already naturally on the ground when the witnesses first discovered them. Allow for the possibility that some elements of the report, like the falling part, could be based originally on witness conjecture or assumption. What you'll find is that a tale so perplexing that the only possible explanation seemed to be a paranormal event, has now become a very cool example of rare animal behavior that most people don't even know about. When you fail to think critically, you fail to learn new information. Never stop your investigation prematurely at the popular supernatural explanation, and always be skeptical.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Camero, H. "A Big Night for viewing frogs and salamanders." Wicked Local Bolton. GateHouse Media, Inc., 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. <http://www.wickedlocal.com/bolton/homepage/x1681298480>
Fort, Charles. The Book of the Damned: The Collected Works of Charles Fort. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2008. 42-50, 81-99, 299-305.
Graham, Jeffrey B. Air-breathing fishes: evolution, diversity, and adaptation. San Diego: Academic Press, 1997. 54-56.
Gudger, E.W. "Rains of Fishes." Natural History. Natural History Magazine, 1 Nov. 1921. Web. 8 Sep. 2009. <http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/271577/rains-of-fishes>
Schneider, T. "The Vernal Pool A Place of Wonder." Wild Ones Journal. 1 Mar. 2006, Volume 18, Number 2: ?.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"It's Raining Frogs and Fish." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
8 Sep 2009. Web.
2 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4170>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 35 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Fish rain is in the news again, a link was provided by Steve Williams. There's even a picture of some of the fish taken off the ground and put in a bucket, showing us the size of these particular fish. No way one of these guys fell from the sky intact, each fish looks over an inch long. Yet they were reported as alive.
Now, the first two Google links for the Spangled Perch:
http://www.nativefish.asn.au/spangledperch.html
http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/subs/fish-info/native_info/spangledPerch.html
Interesting tidbits:
- Spawning takes place from November (following the onset of the Monsoon) into summer.
- Breeding occurs from November to February
While each link is worded a little differently I think it's fair to say this particular 'fish rain' took place during the breeding season.
- Has often been observed attempting to swim up spillways of overflowing dams during [breeding season]
- It has admirable dispersal abilities which allows it to rapidly colonise habitats not readily accessible to other fish species. During heavy rain it has been observed swimming across flooded paddocks and along wheel ruts on tracks
Both links indicate it actively seeks new habitats during breeding season and has actually been observed in water filled wheel ruts during storms!
This particular case seems fairly straightforward yet we have meteorologists still carrying the 'waterspout' theory in the papers.
Plausible biology beats implausible meteorology, at least in my opinion.
JJ, Calgary, Alberta
March 03, 2010 1:49pm
I think many of the numerous accounts of raining animals probably went just as you suggest, but I don't see why the waterspout theory is so implausible. True, most waterspouts are as you describe, but some are more powerful and even like tornadoes(which everyone knows are capable of carrying things for miles) so in my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to completely discredit the waterspout theory. This would explain the cases of herring and other fish that do not migrate over land.
Annie, Ohio
March 28, 2010 3:30pm
I ran across this and thought I would give my experience, so here it is.
My mother told me as a kid about "raining frogs". I didn't believe then, and everyone thought she was just jesting. One day just outside Hastings NE in the early 90's, it rained frogs. She was ecstatic, saying "See! See!" I was dumbfounded.
The frog rain also consisted of large numbers of tadpoles, and upon further inspection (we pulled over) minnows and tiny fish were found. Tornadic weather was present (in fact, it was the super cell near Grand Island --the second one) and that same day I witnessed six tornadoes in an awesome display of nature. I saw a grain silo shoot up into the sky like a rocket. Tornadoes most definitely can vertically propel material.
I came to the conclusion of waterspouts on my own --it seems to be the only possible explanation. I still feel this way and here is why.
In Florida in the mid 90's I saw several waterspouts (small and skinny) in the gulf. The cyclone appeared to suck up water, lose power, and the water crashed from an obvious height, lending credence to the claims. I have been hit by dust devils, one strong enough it felt like I was being lifted (I was still young, ten or so).
Also note some classical natural phenomenona have quantum descriptions (rogue waves) so not all in nature is Newtonian.
Still, for all the claims of raining frogs, nobody claims to have seen them being actually being lifted from the surface of the Earth... Strange.
Dude, Seattle
May 26, 2010 12:21pm
I hope there is no connection, but what strikes me is the mass uni-directional movement. This seem distinct from swarming during breeding season.
http://www.prlog.org/10603948-toads-earthquake-exodus-features-in-new-zsl-london-zoo-study.html
"Common toads (Bufo bufo) can detect impending seismic activity and alter their behaviour from breeding to evacuation mode, suggests a new study in the Zoological Society of London’s (ZSL) Journal of Zoology."
http://thedailybite.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/is-there-an-earthquake-warning-in-mass-migration-of-frogs-or-toads-in-greece/
Merri, Western WA
May 27, 2010 12:57am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
There have been witnesses actually catching objects as they fall from the sky, as well as falls of minnows and tadpoles that obviously could not be travelling across the landscape. While I can't credit the waterspout theory, the flooding theory would held to the same standard: no reports of flooding rivers or sewers during sky fall incidents. And animals are not the only things to fall from the sky!
Os Xiong, NC
March 02, 2010 10:02pm