Of the Ears of Whales

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Whales are awe-inspiring creatures. When I was a kid, they used to bring in the whale carcasses to the rendering plant not far from my dad’s house, and a couple times I got to watch them winch the huge sperm whales from the catcher boats. A small kid next to an enormous whale with a giant toothy jaw agape … I stood astonished. They sliced them open. I was a cattle-ranch-raised kid of the free-range variety, so I’d seen lots of innards … but never anything of the scale and size of whale entrails. Zowie, my eyes bugged out when I saw that. Overwhelming.

And I was lucky enough once to have a big humpback whale surface totally unexpectedly right next to our small 27’ (8 metre) commercial fishing sailboat when a shipmate and I were negotiating a narrow shallow channel between an offshore rock and the coast … twenty feet (six metres) of water under the keel and the whale was much longer than that, it was longer than the boat. Who expects a giant whale right next to the land in such shallow water? It sounded like a wave breaking right next to the boat. I assure you, it was terrifying, an experience capable of loosening a man’s bowels most remarkably. And as it slid by, I saw its enormous, ancient eye, surrounded by wrinkles. Not a black round primordial eye like the eyes of sharks, but the eye of a warm-blooded kinsman. I was left quite shaken.

Being a great fan of these great creatures, I was watching a Nature documentary on humpback whales the other day. They were showing the whales hunting with their “bubble screens”, and how they used powerfully loud sounds to herd the anchovies into a tight ball. They said the whale clicks were about 200 decibels … extremely loud, in other words.

What brought this to mind was an article entitled “Are Wind Turbines Killing Whales?“. The article claims that recent mass whale beachings in Europe might be from wind turbines, saying:

As scientists have pointed out, “It is likely that acoustic masking by anthropogenic sounds is having an increasingly prevalent impact on animals’ access to acoustic information that is essential for communication and other important activities, such as navigation and prey/predator detection.”

“Blinded” by this masking, whales and dolphins could seek refuge in shallow waters, away from big ships and killer whales. There, low tides could surprise them, as large pelagic species have limited experience with tidal flows.

In September 2012, 19 pilot whales, a minke whale and a large sei whale beached on the coast of Scotland opposite an area where air guns were being used by ships surveying the ocean floor, as a prelude to installing offshore wind farms. “A second pod of 24 pilot whales was spotted in shallow water by Cellardyke around the same time, but [it] returned to sea without beaching,” the article noted.

Offshore turbines were also associated with “many” stillborn baby seals washing up onshore near the UK’s Scroby Sands wind farm in June 2005. “It’s hard not to conclude the wind farm is responsible,” the author concluded.

Many more similar deaths may well have been caused by wind farms at sea. The scientific and environmental literature abounds in warnings about risks to marine mammals from man-made noise.

Let me start with what is perhaps the earliest observation of mass whale strandings, that of Aristotle in the 4th century in his Historia Animalium:

“It is not known for what reason they run themselves aground on dry land; at all events it is said that they do so at times, and for no obvious reason.”

So we have reports of mass strandings of whales since forever. Now, I’ve read claims before about how the sounds from seismic prospecting or from sonar were (or were not) causing damage to the whales, and speculations that freighters made enough noise to interfere with them … but not wind turbines. So I thought I’d go see what I could find about noise in the ocean. Here’s the best of what I found:

ambient and localized noise oceanFigure 1. Noise sources in the ocean. “LFAS” is low frequency active sonar, of the type discussed below. SOURCE: Noise and Cetaceans

Fascinating. Now, from that, the humpbacks are only putting out about 150 decibels of noise, and blue whales are at about 175 decibels … but further research supports the existence of stronger noises from hunting whales, viz (emphasis mine):

The researchers played recorded ultrasound whale clicks to several long-finned squid (Loligo pealeii) swimming in a water tank. This species of squid grows to about a foot long and is commonly found off the coast of the northeastern United States.

The ultrasound clicks were broadcast at up to 226 decibels, which is about the most intense whale echolocation click a squid would be exposed to in the wild. If the clicks were at a frequency humans could hear, they would be as loud as a rifle shot heard from three feet in front of the muzzle.

“That would shatter our eardrums. It’s a deafening sound to an animal that can perceive it,” Hanlon told LiveScience.

But not only were the squid not knocked senseless, they did not react at all to the ultrasound bursts, and actually swam in front of the speaker as if nothing were happening.

“That’s like a Bose commercial where you’re sitting there and your hair is straight back because the sound is blasting out,” Hanlon said. “That to us was a stunning result. We did the experiment several times over because we could hardly believe it ourselves.”

Hmmm …

I find other studies putting the intensity of the humpback hunting sounds in the same strength range, at somewhere around 200 decibels …

So a humpback whale is a creature that hunts right next to other humpbacks, all of which are making noise at around 200-225 decibels right in each others’ ears. Stow that thought away for a moment.

Now, can marine mammals be damaged by loud noise? Sure, just like terrestrial mammals. However, there is much dispute about how much sound it takes. It’s very hard to study, because we have reports of mass whale strandings stretching from Aristotle to last years stranding of 337 ! whales in Patagonia. Makes it hard to tell the natural strandings from the anthropogenic ones … sound familiar?

The only really well-documented analysis I’ve found of the question occurred after a mass stranding of five different species of toothed whales in the Bahamas. The Navy was testing multiple high-powered sonars. These were nominal 235 decibel sonars, plus a short blast that was an unknown (classified) amount larger, used in an inshore channel which appears to have focused the effects of the sonar through “surface ducting”, where the sound is trapped in a shallow layer. The report of the ensuing investigation is a fascinating document. The Executive Summary says (emphasis mine):

Based on the way in which the strandings coincided with ongoing naval activity involving tactical mid-range frequency sonar use in terms of both time and geography, the nature of the physiological effects experienced by the dead animals, and the absence of any other acoustic sources, the investigation team concludes that tactical mid-range frequency sonars aboard U.S. Navy ships that were in use during the sonar exercise in question were the most plausible source of this acoustic or impulse trauma.

This sound source was active in a complex environment that included the presence of a strong surface duct, unusual underwater bathymetry, intensive active use of multiple sonar units over an extended period of time, a constricted channel with limited egress, and the presence of beaked whales that appear to be sensitive to the frequencies produced by these sonars. 

The investigation team concludes that the cause of this stranding event was the confluence of the Navy tactical mid-range frequency sonar and the contributory factors noted above acting together. Combinations of factors different from this one may be more or less likely to cause strandings. Research should focus on identifying problematic combinations so they can be avoided. The actual mechanisms by which these sonar sounds could have caused animals to strand, or their tissues to be damaged, have not yet been revealed, but research is under way.

So under certain specialized conditions with multiple high-powered sonars operating over an extended period in confined waters, including one interval at a strength so high it is classified, we have seen evidence of damage.

But those are specialized circumstances, and the ocean is a noisy place. One of the first things you notice when you start scuba diving is just how much noise there is down there. And there are loud noises as well—lightning strikes are very common on the ocean, and they put out broadband noise at 200 dB … and some of the whales themselves are cranking out 200 dB noise, not thousands of meters away, but right next to each other.

So it seems doubtful to me that the sound of freighters or the thwop-thwop-thwop of some dang wind turbine would be enough to drive a whale goofy by damaging their hearing.

However, the authors of the article postulate a second possiblity. They say that perhaps the sound of the wind turbines is masking other sounds:

“Blinded” by this masking, whales and dolphins could seek refuge in shallow waters, away from big ships and killer whales. There, low tides could surprise them, as large pelagic species have limited experience with tidal flows.

This seems very doubtful for several reasons. First off, the wind turbines are inshore, in the shallows. So if the thwop-thwop sound is making it hard for the whales to hear, they would move offshore away from the turbines, not inshore as their theory claims.

Next, any whale who thinks they can escape a killer whale by going inshore needs to go back to the whale school. Killer whales not only go into shallow waters and spend weeks or months there. They are also known to drive themselves right up onto the beach to capture seals.

killer whale on beach

Sometimes I think that there ought to be a law that you have to have crossed an ocean by boat before you are allowed to write about sea … but I digress. As you can see, the best authors do not recommend staying inshore as a way to avoid killer whale attacks …

Next, I don’t buy that mass strandings occur because “large pelagic species have limited experience with tidal flows”. Most whale species involved in mass strandings spend at least part of their time in near-shore waters. In fact, in many mass strandings, when people have pushed the whales back out to sea, they have turned right around and beached themselves again—and that obviously has nothing to do with the tide.

Finally, at this point the offshore wind turbines have been there for some years. If they were a whale trap, surely we’d have seen some strandings before now.

At the end of the day, in most instances, the cause of most instances of whales stranding themselves on shorelines around the planet remains a mystery. And it seems like this stranding near the wind turbines is in the same situation of having an unknown origin, because it can’t plausibly be laid at the feet of the wind turbines themselves.

Unless perhaps this time the whales are beaching themselves in a grand cetacean Gandhi-style non-violent protest against the turbines, a final tragic attempt to encourage humans to get rid of those expensive subsidy-sucking machines marring the lovely surface of the sea.

And don’t even get me started on the ongoing slaughter of marine birds by offshore wind turbines …

Regards to all,

w.

My Usual Request: Misunderstandings are the bane of the internet. If you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.

My Other Request: If you think that e.g. I’m using the wrong method on the wrong dataset, please educate me and others by demonstrating the proper use of the right method on the right dataset. Simply claiming I’m wrong doesn’t advance the discussion.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

162 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AJB
March 6, 2016 3:07 pm

Willis, have you run across this guy’s blog and theory?
http://deafwhale.blogspot.com/
The empty digestive tract part is interesting.

AJB
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 6, 2016 3:24 pm

Yep, that’s pretty much the impression I was left with. Nice sound tracks BTW, thanks for that.

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 9, 2016 5:59 pm

You say, “In fact, in many mass strandings, when people have pushed the whales back out to sea, they have turned right around and beached themselves again—and that obviously has nothing to do with the tide.”
You are mistaken. Let me start by saying that whales mass beach for one simple reason; they have lost their acoustic sense of direction due most often to sinus barotrauma. Without a sense a direction, a lost pod of whales will be turned by drag forces and pointed downstream into the path of least resistance. In other words, a lost pod of whales will always swim with the flow of the surface currents as directed by the tidal flow and/or the wind-driven currents or a combination of the two. Thus, your statement that when freed, whales often return to the beach has nothing to do with tidal flow is 100% incorrect. The return to the beach after being push off has everything to do with the incoming tidal flow and/or wind-driven surface currents. I suggest you read: http://deafwhale.blogspot.com/2014/12/navigation-failure-in-mass-stranded.html
By the way, I have 52 years of ocean going experience and have been obsessed with solving the centuries-old mystery of why whales strand since 1964. If you struggle through my capital letters and use of highlighting, you will see all the evidence you need. And, there’s plenty more if you wish to see it.
Capt. David Williams

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 9, 2016 6:36 pm

Willis,
Strange that you seem to challenge my work because you don’t like the way I write. That’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Let me clear up a few things for you. My hypothesis says that pressure waves from undersea earthquakes and volcanic explosions cause sinus barotrauma in pods of diving whales. The injury disable their acoustic navigation and causes them to swim blindly into the sand. What’s wrong with that idea? Do you have any evidence that says it’s not true? I should point out that in the chart in your article above, the loudest source of undersea noise just happens to be undersea earthquakes and volcanic explosions.
You also dismiss my work because you suggest I promote conspiracy theories. Why not read the real reason why the US Navy covers-up why whales strand: http://www.deafwhale.com
You can also read how and undersea earthquake sank the nuclear submarine USS Scorpion and why the US Navy wants to keep the seaquake danger out of the public domain. http://deafwhale.com/uss-scorpion/
You also say that whales emit 200 db signals right next to each other. This is misleading since it makes no mention of the manner in which whales hear. Whales hear via their lower jaw, If a sound is too loud, they can simply turn away from the source. They are also well aware of the acoustic weapon they possess and would never use it in an irresponsible way.
I might add that I have read many fictional articles written with fancy words in a most tasteful style that have no resemblance whatsoever to the truth. In other words, smooth as silk but still garbage.

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 10, 2016 8:42 pm

Willis, you write great sarcastical prose, but your reasoning is only surface deep. For example, you accept that sonar killed the beaked whales in the Bahamas just because scientists said so. Let me muddy the water a little. Beaked whales have the most fantastic acoustic abilities of any animal our planet has ever know or ever will know. They can probably hear a humpback whale fart from a thousand miles away. So tell me, what motivated these acoustic experts to swim towards the navy sonar and get themselves killed? Why didn’t they swim away from the noise?
Here’s some question for you:
1. Why do whales strand on sand 95% of the time and not rocks or mud flats?
2. Why do some whales swim back to the beach when release and others swim to deeper water?
3. Where do odontoceti whales find the most squid?
4. Why would sperm whales enter the North Sea where there are no giant squid, their favorite food?
5. Why do odontoceti feed mostly at night and rest during the day?
6. Why are all mass stranded whales super dehydrated and have no fresh food in their stomachs?
7. Do odontoceti whales drink salt water?
YOU’LL FIND A LOT OF ANSWER HERE: http://deafwhale.com
When it comes to why whales strand, you simply have no knowledge. You mistakenly believe the BS that whale scientists feed you, but you don’t know if it is true or not.
I think you should stick to sarcasm, something you seemed to have mastered.
Capt. David Williams

Toto
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 12, 2016 10:23 pm

Capt. David Williams gives a link to a page which claims to know the true cause of the sinking of the USS Scorpion submarine. Too much conspiracy theory for me. However the USS Scorpion case is very interesting in the context of sound travel in the oceans because it was found by listening to tapes of ocean sounds from vast distances away and calculating where to search from that. The idea was dismissed by the Navy’s experts, who had failed to find the sub, but eventually they did look there and they did find it. The story is told in the book “Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage”, which is a great read. See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_%28SSN-589%29

Craig Moore
March 6, 2016 3:18 pm

Years ago in the Swiftsure race http://www.swiftsure.org/ a whale surfaced next to us at night and bumped our keel. It was pitch black darkness. Was a bit unnerving. By the way did you ever read Hugh Downs ‘A Shoal of Stars?’ http://www.amazon.com/Shoal-Stars-Account-Everymans-Dream/dp/B003VZZ3MG

Kent Noonan
March 6, 2016 3:20 pm

Willis makes a very good point, that whales couldn’t be too easily damaged by sounds if they make so much of it themselves. But this is a very complex issue. I have been in the water while a whale was singing, very close by, and I can tell it was one of the loudest sounds I ever heard. Frequency matters a lot. Ultrasonic sound has much different effects than audio or infrasonic. Acoustic impedance of the target makes all the difference, and varies with frequency. Probably the reason squid could ignore the sound is they are acoustically transparent in that part of the spectrum. If you clap your hands once per second, are you making a 1 Hz sound, or high frequency? Both. Many of the sounds whales make have this character, multiple frequencies. I have a friend that is an expert in whale behavior regarding sound. Much of the impact of man made sound is not that it is damaging, but interfering with other sounds of interest. Sometimes the effects are simply that it scares them and they try to avoid it, by surfacing too fast. However, some man made sounds ARE damaging, because they have a lot of energy at frequencies that move a lot of tissue. Air guns would be a good example. I have permanent hearing loss from a very similar type sound.
It is good to keep in mind that whales communicate with sound over very long distances, so hearing is vitally important to them. A seemingly small impact can have major effects for them. I have listened underwater with hydrophones to whales from very far away, many miles, and the sound of a small boat 3 miles away completely drowns it out. It even drowns out the nearby singers.

Don K
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 2:47 am

I doubt there’s any way to be sure about whales and wind turbines short of discussing the matter with a cetecean. But I’d find the stranding argument a lot more persuasive if whales alter their migration patters to avoid (or visit) the turbines. I did check the internet to see if altered whale migration patterns is currently a big deal in marine biology circles. I found the inevitable plethora of speculative crap about how climate change will kill all the whales within days if we don’t change our evil ways. I didn’t find anything that sounded serious and well substantiated.

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 11, 2016 7:11 pm

Willis, you need to learn a few things. You need to be made aware that sound waves, regardless of frequency, travel underwater as a series of positive and negative pressure changes above and below the surrounding water pressure. Intense higher frequencies (+2,000 hz) easily damages the cochlea, On the other hand, intense low frequencies (0.5 hz and 100 hz) mainly damage the cranial air spaces. In dealing with LF sounds, there are scores of other factors to consider beside the decibel level. The following are just a few: (1) distances from the sound source, (2) depth of the water, (3) orientation of whales, (4) temperature of the hydrospace, and (5) many more factors.
You also need to know that the air in the sinuses serve to reflect, focus, and channel all returning echo-location clicks. Thus, both a cochlea injury and a sinus injury will disable the normally excellent acoustic sense of direction in odontoceti.
You also need to know which way a pod of whales would swim in case their biosonar system was disabled. You smart man. It should be easy for you to understand that whales with no sense of direction will always swim downstream in the path of least drag. It’s the only way any object, dead or alive, will travel in the open ocean. You should also be smart of to know that the currents guiding lost whales (dead or alive) is the same energy that carries sand to build beaches. These means that the odds are extremely high that lost whales wash into to sand. That it is is called “whale beachings” is practical proof that beached whales have no acoustic sense of direction when they swim into the sand. More proof is offered by the FACT that any successful refloat of beached whales must be done with the tidal currents are flowing offshore. If released when the water in washing ashore, the whales just turn around and come back to the beach.
I could go on for days showing you how little you really know about whale strandings. You know practically nothing because this is what the US Navy and oil Industry want you know. You also need to learn how to read scientific papers about whales stranding. You can tell when whale scientists are blowing smoke up your butt by looking for the qualifiers such as, may, maybe, likely, some scientists believe, possible, could, might, and a dozen other words that should not ever appear in the scientific paper. How can write science by qualify all your statements.
If you want to know why they lie, read http://deafwhale.com
Capt David Williams, Chairman
The Deafwhale Society, the oldest whale conservation group in the world!

Reply to  Capt. David Williams
March 11, 2016 7:20 pm

David Williams,
A better attitude would go a long way.

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 12, 2016 4:22 am

There is no way to win an argument with a stranger to the truth because the dummy will never know that he is lost within the empty space between his ears. What a joke! Goodbye.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 12, 2016 1:10 am

Williams,
You’ve been owned by Willis.
Next…

TomRude
Reply to  Kent Noonan
March 6, 2016 6:41 pm

Exactly Kent! As you correctly pointed out, frequency rather than loudness could be a factor. One can blow 120 dB into an ultra sound whistle behind someone and that person won’t notice; try to change the frequency and…

Bob Denby
Reply to  Kent Noonan
March 7, 2016 9:03 am

Woulda, coulda, shoulda … what if? … maybe.. SOUNDS TO ME like your postulations would serve as ‘boiler-plate’ for a grant request (I guess).

Tom Halla
March 6, 2016 3:23 pm

Oh well, there goes one argument against off-shore bird cusinarts.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 6, 2016 5:46 pm

Agreed. And I used it in a rebuttal just last night.
Oh well, not like there is a shortage of negative issues about wind farms.
Then again, as I remember being a similar scenarios with the apartment next door blasting highly amplified noxious sounds and thumps; and I sure felt like beaching myself repeatedly against concrete columns just so I could get some sleep.
Maybe the cetacea feel the same about having wind farms next door.
Then there are the researchers playing with literally blasting squid by sonar; only there are some big problems with testing squids using sound. ‘Potential for Sound Sensitivity in Cephalopods’:
T. Aran Mooney, Roger Hanlon, Peter T. Madsen, Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard, Darlene R. Ketten, and Paul E. Nachtigall’

“…Early anecdotal reports suggested that cephalopods might detect sounds because squid were attracted to 600-Hz tones and cuttlefish ( Sepia officinalis ) elicited startle responses to 180-Hz stimuli (Dijkgraaf 1963 ; Maniwa 1976 ) . Norris and Møhl ( 1983 ) later postulated that squid might be debilitated by the acoustic intensity of foraging odontocete (toothed whale and dolphin) echolocation clicks. This hypothesis led Moynihan ( 1985 ) to suggest that squid might, in turn, be deaf to acoustic stimuli to avoid this “stunning.”…

Cephalopods tend to be very visual critters and don’t sport what people would consider ‘ears’. However;

“…Previous studies have shown that cephalopods are sensitive to underwater particle motion, especially at low frequencies in the order of 10 Hz. The present paper deals with quantitative modeling of the statocyst system in three cephalopod species:…”

. Unfortunately, this particular bit of research is all models after this note.
From the sound sensitivity paper:

“…However, anatomical evidence of squid statocysts indicates that the organ acts as an accelerometer (Budelmann 1976 ) potentially used for acoustic detection (Budelmann 1992 ) . Behavioral conditioning experiments later confirmed that squid ( Loligo vulgaris), octopus ( Octopus vulgaris ), and S. officinalis can detect acceleration stimuli from 1 to 100 Hz, presumably by using the statocyst organ as an accelerometer detecting the body movements of the squid in the sound field (Packard et al. 1990 ) . This and a follow-up study (Kaifu et al. 2008 ) showed that cephalopods can detect the low-frequency particle-motion component of a sound field, but the question whether cephalopods are also sensitive to higher frequencies and sound pressures still remained. Recent laboratory experiments have demonstrated that squid do not exhibit antipredator responses in the presence of odontocete echolocation clicks (Wilson et al. 2007 ) , indicating that they cannot detect the ultrasonic pressure component of a sound field…”

An organ that detects particle acceleration is not the same as an organ that converts external sound to internal signals including volume/intensity.
Perhaps the research goons playing with the sound equipment should find other work.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 8, 2016 7:01 pm

My apologies for the double post. I thought my PC or ISP provider ate the post.
Deletion of my second post(s) is welcome!

B.j.
March 6, 2016 3:34 pm

How do they navigate ? Is it by a sound map, a kind off radar? Like moths do by the moon and get confused by our lights.

Kent Noonan
Reply to  B.j.
March 6, 2016 4:17 pm

Echolocation is the main navigation tool. Studies have found that while migrating, they go from one geological feature to another, many miles apart, finding a seamount or cliff face acoustically. There are probably other audible cues as well, the sound of a basin or open water, like us standing in a room with high ceilings or a narrow corridor. And they have high intelligence, the largest brains on the planet. So it would be reasonable to assume they can memorize features for navigation.

Kent Noonan
Reply to  Kent Noonan
March 6, 2016 4:22 pm

Oh yeah. It is useful to consider that our Navy designed the low frequency active sonar (LFAS) by emulating the sounds whales make. frequency sweeps and bursts that are designed to highlight specific features in the acoustic landscape. Using this, they can find a submarine from hundreds (thousands?) of miles away. And it sounds like a robotic whale.

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Kent Noonan
March 7, 2016 1:52 am

I have got lost a number of times by mis-interpreting the features I thought were waymarkers. The worst was at night in the Breacon Beacons, with thirty blokes getting very cheesed off following me rouned in a circle…….

JohnWho
March 6, 2016 3:40 pm

“Next, anyone whale who thinks they can escape a killer whale…”
Typo.

Marcus
March 6, 2016 3:59 pm

I really wish the rating system worked !! 5 stars…

KuhnKat
March 6, 2016 4:15 pm

Willis,
I notice a large lack of frequency mentioned in most of the articles. We are affected differently by the same amplitude at different frequencies. It would be strange if the whales weren’t also.
I give weight to your comment that the turbines have been operating for years with no previous beachings, but, degradation from ageing of the things could be changing the spectrum and amplitudes they are emitting.
Another area that needs more research.

Marcus
Reply to  KuhnKat
March 6, 2016 4:33 pm

..Maybe they are starting to vibrate more, setting up some weird harmonics ??

kuhnkat
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 11:41 pm

Strangely enough I don’t see an entry for Wind Turbines on the chart…
I tend to agree that they are NOT the problem, that it is natural, but, no current data means it is NOT possible to exclude them as contributory.

ShrNfr
March 6, 2016 4:16 pm

May I suggest the use of black type on the various areas. The light type on the bright green is almost illegible. I personally have excellent color discrimination, so if I am having problems, I suspect that there are folks who cannot read the type at all in them.

Reply to  ShrNfr
March 6, 2016 4:43 pm

Willis has a slight problem with color.

ShrNfr
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 5:53 am

All very fine and all very well, but I will call it to your attention that if it is not your graph, a couple of simple steps in potatoeslop would clarify the information that you are attempting to present. I am sure your article has value. That value would be improved if you had better graphics in this case. Sorry you are sensitive on the topic of presentation, but this one could have been improved with a slight amount of work on that graphic, be it yours or somebody else’s.

Dodgy Geezer
March 6, 2016 4:24 pm

…At the end of the day, in most instances, the cause of most instances of whales stranding themselves on shorelines around the planet remains a mystery. And it seems like this stranding near the wind turbines is in the same situation of having an unknown origin, because it can’t plausibly be laid at the feet of the wind turbines themselves….
Aha… but, Willis, you’ve forgotten the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE! That’s the principle that lets the Greens ban a thing they don’t like purely because no one can prove that it’s 100% safe in all circumstances, including ones we haven’t thought about yet, in a future that no one can predict…
If the turbines were run by Shell to provide power for offshore drilling, there would be ‘Save the Whale’ marches in all major Western capitals next week…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
March 6, 2016 7:00 pm

Dodgy Geezer gets a Budweiser as he has “said it all” about the greenies.
Willis points out that Aristotle, 340 years before Jesus was born, wrote that whale strandings were well known. Since the Greeks and Egyptians seem not to have built similar structures back then surely wind turbines weren’t the cause then.
President Obama could, of course, declare whale strandings to be “unprecedented” and have the EPA ban wind turbines. More likely than current temp readings that he HAS called unprecedented. Our knowledge of whale behavior doesn’t go back as far as temp proxies.
I wonder if Alexander and Barak have much in common.

PRD
Reply to  John H. Harmon
March 7, 2016 8:47 am

“I wonder if Alexander and Barak have much in common.”
Wow! Talk about stirring the imagination.

Luke
March 6, 2016 4:39 pm

Good analysis. I agree with your assessment, whale strandings have been documented for centuries and we still don’t know the cause.

Bubba Cow
March 6, 2016 4:53 pm

One adverse health effect to humans from low frequency infrasound pulses by wind turbines is due to vibration of the inner ear gyroscopics that contribute to balance. Those structures (one for each ear) are vibrated and confuse the neural inputs up the brainstem. That’s the source of the “sea sickness” symptoms. Studies from Wright-Patterson labs during the 60s (lost to me from fatal hard drive crash a few years ago) on flight simulators found that whole body vibrations at infrasound frequencies could be tuned to give all pilots sickening sensations including vibrating other tissues (particularly vertebrae) with resulting increases in blood pressure, heart rate …
None of those vibrations are audible to us – don’t have any idea about whales and humans are typically pretty low on animal sensation scales. Point is, those noises don’t have to be deafening to be damaging. Won’t speculate on beaching.

March 6, 2016 5:39 pm

Just a minor detail. Killer whales (orcas) are not even whales. They are the largest most viscious dolphin. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are the three recognized genera of sea mammals. All presumably decended from four legged land mammals,somewhen back when. All dolphins and porpoises are toothed. Whales come in two flavors; toothed (e.g.Sperm) and (krill) filtering (e.g. Balleen)
Otherwise another beautiful and poetic Willis post.

Chip Javert
Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2016 5:58 pm

ristvan
re: Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are the three recognized genera of sea mammals.
Huh? What about seals, sea lions, walrus, and (yes) polar bears? All mammals.

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 6, 2016 6:12 pm

Well, look up your species genera, then get back with your brilliant sea mammal non taxa. You really should use simple stuff like Google before posting such inanities.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Chip Javert
March 7, 2016 12:16 pm

Those are semi-aquatic creatures, not fully aquatic. Seals and walruses spend significant time on and breed on land. Polar bears only travel in the sea. They don’t even hunt there.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Chip Javert
March 7, 2016 9:03 pm

ristvan
Ok, so I accepted your coaching and looked it up at: https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/.
Despite all your snark, polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774. Polar bear), seals, et al. are all “sea mammals”. I forgot manatee.
I suppose we’ll now have an pseudo argument over quality of my source.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Chip Javert
March 7, 2016 9:03 pm

eat all = et al

Don K
Reply to  ristvan
March 7, 2016 6:06 am

“Just a minor detail. Killer whales (orcas) are not even whales. They are the largest most viscious dolphin. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are the three recognized genera of sea mammals.”
Since we’re being picky, everybody seems to have their own taxonomy for the cetacea (and most everything else actually). Whales/dolphins/porpoises is a common breakdown for the odontoceti (toothed whales). Odontoceti doesn’t include the baleen whales which area a separate suborder (Mysticeti).
FWIW, Wikipedia puts killer whales in the family Delphinidae (porpoises), genus Orcinus
But that doesn’t mean that next week or next year someone won’t present strong arguments for moving Orcinus out of the Delphinidae into its own family or some other family.
Genus is a lower level term — second from the bottom in Linnaean nomenclature.
Taxonomy seems to be yet another unsettled science.

benofhouston
Reply to  ristvan
March 7, 2016 10:24 pm

I’ll give you the manatee. Others, you are splitting hairs to avoid the point.

Chip Javert
Reply to  benofhouston
March 8, 2016 6:27 am

The discussion is about the effect noise has on mammals spending significant time living & eating in the oceans. Splitting pedantic hairs about the taxonomy of sea otters (Enhydra ultras) and other sea is like counting dancing angels on the head of a pin.
When I GOOGLE “Marine mammals” (https://www.google.com/#q=sea+mammal+definition) I get the following: Marine mammals, which include seals, sea lions, whales, dolphins, porpoises, manatees, dugongs, marine otters, walruses, and polar bears, form a diverse group of 129 species that rely on the ocean for their existence.Ristvan could use a maturity transplant .
I’m happy to provide ristvan with this needed update on the definition of marine mammals; I wish I could help as much with the required maturity transplant (or, in his case perhaps, implant).

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  ristvan
March 8, 2016 1:08 pm

Killer whales are indeed toothed whales (parvorder Odontoceti), of the genus Orcinus in the subfamily Orcininae of the family Delphinidae, the oceanic dolphins. Its sister families in the superfamily Delphinoidea are the Monodontidae (beluga whales and narwhals) and Phocoenidae (porpoises). Other superfamilies currently recognized in the Odontoceti are three river dolphin groups, sperm whales and beaked whales.

JBJ
Reply to  ristvan
March 11, 2016 4:29 pm

Yes they are whales – brush up on your taxonomy!!!

Steven F
March 6, 2016 5:53 pm

Just like the previouse article the sould levels for wind turibnes underwater are not listed. So I went to google andrestricted the search to pdf documents and found this document:
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Nedwell_dBht_(2).pdf
It list noise levels underwtaer at 16Hz of 153 DB max. So if whales are puting out 200DB I can conclude that whales make more noise than wind turbines.

Chip Javert
March 6, 2016 5:56 pm

I always get a kick out of Tisdale & Willis’ posts. They do a good job of analyzing more-or-less obscure stuff and boiling it down into a thousand words or less, so that even I can understand (at least some of) it.
I like whales (who doesn’t?), but if I was a professional whale-hugger I’d at least do the homework to create a stacked-bar-chart (y axis: global total beached whale deaths; x axis: calendar year) plotting whale beaching with n-miles of a wind farm.
Some folks want to worry about wind farm (or other acoustic sources) whale beachings without any real “event” data. This is similar to the recent polar bear extinction fiasco – nobody, in fact, had even bothered to inventory the bears. When they did, it looks like we got bears coming out the wazoo, and populations are healthier than ever.

commieBob
Reply to  Chip Javert
March 6, 2016 6:41 pm

nobody, in fact, had even bothered to inventory the bears.

When I was in the arctic in the 1970s, Ian Stirling and his crew were actively studying polar bears. They were actually tagging them so they were pretty much on a first name basis.
The government scientists were able to produce plausible numbers for polar bears. The Eskimos disagreed with those numbers. They said there were way more polar bears than the government scientists said there were.
On the one hand, the Eskimos had more credibility because they spent many more man-hours on the land. On the other hand, they had an interest in inflating the numbers to get a bigger hunting quota. I tended to side with the Eskimos.
We can’t say that the government scientists didn’t bother to inventory the polar bears. The most we can say is that they got it wrong.

Chip Javert
Reply to  commieBob
March 7, 2016 9:13 pm

commieBob
I’m certainly no Polar Bear expert so I defer to you and the Eskimos. Following what I’ve read about polar bear census on WUWT over the past few years, I recall there are a number of Arctic territories inhabited by polar bears, some of which are “inventoried” more rigorously than others, but nobody claimed the entire species of polar bear had been accurately inventoried in all territories.
My previous comment was in reference to the entire population, which was alleged to be rapidly going extinct.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
March 8, 2016 5:27 am

Chip Javert says:
March 7, 2016 at 9:13 pm
commieBob
I’m certainly no Polar Bear expert …

Me neither. “Polar bears. Why’d it have to be polar bears?” (apologies to I. Jones)

My previous comment was in reference to the entire population, which was alleged to be rapidly going extinct.

While I have the greatest of respect for Dr. Stirling (and his associates), his expertise exists under the conditions in effect when he did his research. Everything else is extrapolation and hypothesis.

Reply to  Chip Javert
March 6, 2016 6:57 pm

Chip…..out the wazoo? Is that less than a gazillion? Or is it similar to “up to your ass in alligators”? Inquiring minds want to know.

Chip Javert
Reply to  fossilsage
March 7, 2016 9:16 pm

fossilsage
As it applies to Polar Bears in, it means you should not go trick-or-treating in Arctic territories dressed as a ring seal.

u.k(us)
March 6, 2016 6:24 pm

Some kind of suicide pact ?, we do it.

commieBob
March 6, 2016 6:24 pm

I recalled that cavitation could be a problem for sonar so I decided to google on it. What turned up was Pistol Shrimp.
These little guys can kill small fish with their 218 dB blasts of sound. Awesome!

Being and Time
March 6, 2016 7:21 pm

The obvious explanation is that the whales are just homesick for the land they left millions of years ago and would like to become terrestrial mammals again.

richard verney
March 6, 2016 8:09 pm

To me it is all speculation.
It may not be a question as to whether the sound damages the whale, but rather whether a sound confuses the whale. The nature and location of the sound together with the interaction of other sounds in the vicinity may be important.
However, since we do not know what whales are looking for, how they interpret the sounds that they detect, what these sounds mean to them and the significance they place on various and different sounds, it would be extremely difficult to reach any conclusion on whether a windfarm in any particular location may have an impact on them.
Thank god for fossil fuels since without those, there would probably be no whales left.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  richard verney
March 6, 2016 10:51 pm

Obviously the sounds are a microaggression.

Martin Lewitt
March 6, 2016 8:16 pm

Even the bottom of the Marianas Trench is a noisy place. I wonder which frequencies are attenuated most with distance.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/04/469213580/unique-audio-recordings-find-a-noisy-mariana-trench-and-surprise-scientists

March 6, 2016 10:12 pm

Willis I caught on to the way killer whales beach them selves to capture seals. On Vancouver Island there is a trail along the shore that many people walk along to see killer whales swim by, the trail is 10-15 ft high, I have often wondered how people can just stand there and oe and ah if they would realize what these animals are capable of, just seeing them from the relative safety of a large vessel they are something to behold but scary none the less.

March 6, 2016 11:39 pm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626231/
“….were found to demonstrate a clear 11–13- year periodicity in the number of events…”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385110104001297
“…We compared the documented sperm whale strandings in the period from 1712 to 2003 with solar activity, especially with sun spot number periodicity and found that 90% of 97 sperm whale stranding events around the North Sea took place when the smoothed sun spot period length was below the mean value of 11 years, while only 10% happened during periods of longer sun spot cycles…..”

David Cage
March 7, 2016 12:03 am

May I correct the statement that wind turbines have been there for years. This is only half true. Yes wind turbines have been there for years but not ones the current size. The newer larger ones rotate slower so they produce a different frequency. As the wind hits the blade the energy extraction slows it down so you have in effect generated a pressure wave equal to the power extracted. In other words an extra low
frequency sound wave in the same order of power as the turbine rating. This is orders of magnitude more powerful than naval sonar. I notice that turbine people only start at frequencies of around 16Hz. Surely they must know the real power is at the blade rotation speed related one which is far lower.
Add to this we have far more very large arrays of them so the mix frequencies produced are going to now be across the board and right in the most damaging part of the spectrum for whale communication.
So far I have not seen any tests on the sound from wind turbines that addresses the real problem with arrays of them. The blades emit around a 6 Hz extra low frequency signal with each one different. The beat signals produce peaks at random points at really high levels but localised. Even the small five turbine local wind “farm” shows this effect when the wind is in a particular direction probably due to something to do with the tower alignment and spacing. Notice how even in the naval example the important part was intensive use of MULTIPLE sources.

JBJ
Reply to  David Cage
March 11, 2016 4:48 pm

I notice the “arm chair” experts never responded to your post!

ralfellis
March 7, 2016 1:20 am

Hey, Willis, slightly OT, but:
One reason for the initial rejection of my ice age paper, was because I mentioned you… ;-). Sorry, we are both in the same boat – outsiders in a conformist world. Apparently, the reviewer did not like ‘sceptical’ views the Thunderstorm Thermostas theory). Oh, how science has changed. (In truth, the review was a bit of a hatchet-job.)
R

John R Walker
March 7, 2016 1:30 am

It’s unlikely IMO to be down to sound pressure levels – more likely to be down to infrasound at frequencies which damage complex brains and/or other organs. People get killed by 7Hz and can be badly shaken up by ~14Hz. We know this and it’s been weaponised though it proved to be too dangerous to use because low frequencies are omni-directional therefore uncontrollable.
Wind power industry seems to have gone out of its way not to produce frequency and SPL spectral charts for turbines either on land or on the water in the infrasound frequencies known to cause physiological effects in humans and I would assume in other higher mammals.

John R Walker
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 4:14 pm

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080920193328/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf
I have read it before but I’ve just read it again – very little about infrasound – mostly about LF sound in the audible spectrum but some sections which do relate to negative effects from some infrasound/simulated infrasound trials.
However, the specific work I have seen starting in the 1950s is not included nor anything remotely like it. I prefer to believe that evidence and I have seen the plans of the equipment they used before they were officially destroyed to prevent anybody else trying to replicate the experiment(s). It was actually lodged as a patent at one time and available to anybody for a small fee. I have discussed this at length with people used to very low frequency sound e.g. industrial noise engineers and organ builders, and there was general agreement ‘it was possible’. But if you prefer Wiki then fine! That’s the world we live in these days…

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 9, 2016 7:35 pm

If you expose a mammal to a 7 hz signal in air, less acoustic energy enters the internal organs so there is less trauma. On the other hand, because flesh is mostly water, exposing a mammal to an intense 7 hz hydroacoustic signal while submerged is a different story entirely. The LF sound would travel through the body and alter the greatly volume of air in the lungs and intestines and place the heart in jeopardy by putting pressure on aorta and other major blood vessels. In addition, the resonant frequency of the abdominal mass is ~7 hz so it conceivable that such a signal would empty the bowels rather quickly. This signal is also very near the Schumann Resonance so various effects can be observed.
We must also consider sound underwater much differently that sound in air. The main difference is that air is a far less dense medium, so it doesn’t take much to move air, but sound attenuates reasonably quickly in air, whereas under water, you need a sound that’s intense enough to move the water, which is quite dense and heavy, but it’s not very compressible so the sound then will propagate long distances.
There is a lot learn here when talking about the likelihood of auditory injury in whales.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights