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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
162 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gareth Phillips
March 7, 2016 2:06 am

“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”
” Stay close by your desks and never go to sea
And you may be rulers of the Queens Navy”
(Sir Joseph Porter 1878)
http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/gilbert/porter.html

Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 7, 2016 10:19 am

Well spoken, Gareth, apt reference indeed.

Chris Wright
March 7, 2016 2:40 am

“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.”
.
That’s as good a theory as any!
.
Seriously, as whale beachings have been observed for hundreds and thousands of years, it’s amazing that we still don’t know what causes them.
Chris

Reply to  Chris Wright
March 7, 2016 5:26 am

Hey man, we do not even know why women ask men if their butt looks fat. And that was likely one of the first questions ever asked when words were invented.
“Why beached whales” has just got to wait it’s turn.

Capt. David Williams
Reply to  Chris Wright
March 9, 2016 7:41 pm

Chris, archeologists tell us whales have been mass beaching for at least 3 million years, likely much longer. Undersea earthquakes, volcanic explosions, and the occasion violent impact of a meteorite with the water’s surface is the only ancient source that could cause injury in diving whales. Sinus barotrauma is the #1 injury in scuba divers and is also the number injury in other diving mammals.

March 7, 2016 2:58 am

Please read this as an aside to the Willis scientific work.
The following poem from 1992 is dated by its reference to then Australian Prime Minister Hawke and Greenpeace buying another protest boat. Plus the style trying to emulate Tom Lehrer.
My life is all in tatters
Nothing else is left that matters
When I get this letter in the daily mail,
Inviting my donation
In return for life salvation – to
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
It says there’s nothing to it
Write a cheque, man, you can do it,
Or send us cash in case your credit fails.
You will feel an inner glow
As you watch your savings go –
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
My wife has up and left me
For a girl who’s acting friendly
And my youngest boy is heading off to jail,
For spreading L.S.D.
Through the kindergarten free –
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
My teeth are full of caries
And my mind’s off with the fairies,
But coughing up will make it all worthwhile.
They’re locking me inside
And I’m thinking suicide –
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
One daughter needs aborting
And another one is courting
A motor cycle hippie, out on bail
Who has suspected rabies
From biting dogs and babies
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
The rent is overdue,
So is daughter number two,
My overdraft is quite beyond the pale.
I’m threatened with eviction
And criminal conviction –
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
There should be peace within because
I have found this greenie cause.
Greenpeace ™ and I together will prevail!
There are better things for money
Than my life of milk and honey –
Save a whale! Save a whale! Save a whale!
Today I got a greeting
Saying that they’d held a meeting
And decided that the way to save the whales
Was to hold a protest talk,
Buy a ship and Robert Hawke –
And the whales? Save the whales?
Damn the whales!!

March 7, 2016 3:27 am

Much as I would like Wind Turbines to be responsible for Whale beachings, so that we could get them banned, Willis’ argument seems rather sound. The wind turbines may not make the whales beach themselves.

March 7, 2016 5:23 am

Why not get you started on the bird slaughter?
The birds, man. The birds!

March 7, 2016 5:57 am

Looking at the chart I see the rather surprising datum that submarines emit 100dB, about the same as Flipper when echolocating. As a long-time Tom Clancy fan I am outraged. I remember clearly from the TV show how much noise Flipper makes and I demand to know why we aren’t getting all the stealth we are paying for in our submarines! At least I assume those were our submarines; I can’t imagine the Soviet Union would invite scientists to study their submarines and publish the results (unless it’s disinformation).
I checked the linked article and although they show submarine noise in the graph, they do not list it in the table or provide a source for it. The table also claims that “background ocean noise” runs 74-100dB; at 100dB for any frequency between 100 and 8000 Hz, OSEA requires personal hearing protection. Maybe I should wear ear muffs when I dive.
Seriously, are submarines really that noisy?

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
March 7, 2016 5:58 am

For “OSEA” read “OSHA”. Sorry.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
March 7, 2016 9:18 am

For some applications, subs emit over 200 dB.
Whale strandings have indeed occurred for about as long as there have been whales, but whale strandings have nonetheless been strongly correlated with sonar operations. Whales also have been observed to flee from some sonar emissions.

The Original Mike M
March 7, 2016 6:00 am

“And don’t even get me started on the ongoing slaughter of marine birds by offshore wind turbines”
I wish I could because it’s my suspicion that each one is a marine bird slaughter factory. The stanchions become artificial reefs and the resulting increase of marine life around them attracts the birds to their death. (And bird corpses attract even more fish which then attract even more birds…)

Don K
Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 7, 2016 6:45 am

“And bird corpses attract even more fish which then attract even more birds…”
… which attract larger predators like sharks and marine mammals such as whales

March 7, 2016 6:04 am

Fond though I am of CFACT and their great work on the side of rationality, I thought the article by Paul Driessen and Mark Duchamp, attempting to link off-shore wind turbines and whale beaching, long on supposition and short on facts—a bit too much like the way the Climatists operate. So it is good to see Willis taking a closer look at this claim.
Willis has the same complaint about the blog post linked by AJB:
http://deafwhale.blogspot.com
The author, a Capt. David Williams, claims that whale beaching is a consequence of violent undersea disturbances (seaquakes, volcanoes, meteorite strikes, etc. in addition to more recent anthropogenic devices) which can destroy the sinuses on which whales rely for sound production and echo-location, making feeding impossible and leading to starvation, dehydration, and disorientation. This is an interesting hypothesis, which surely deserves more research. Capt. Williams says that the stomachs and intestines of (some?) beached whales were empty, which suggests he’s on the right track. Has anyone looked at their sinuses?
The good Captain claims that the Navy and oil companies have conspired to silence this research direction, because they are themselves increasingly part of the problem (though historically it’s all nature, not man). This seems a bit far-fetched, as surely there is a good deal of research on whales that is not dependent on their funding—but then, who knows? Too often, he who pays the piper. . .
/Mr Lynn

Ex-expat Colin
March 7, 2016 6:22 am

Its likely a bad choice to be found in the UK North Sea and/or the English Channel, not known for bountiful life now that the EU trawls it to death. So, not sure about adequacy of fish lunches. There’s an awful lot of seals about and languishing well out of deep water I think…certainly in channels along the Norfolk coast.
Was thinking that their pinger(s) must give them an indication of depth? These boys will get into shallow water fast if they don’t clock the tides, as some have discovered…badly. So if they get returns indicating seals and go for it…might be catastrophic. Its a leadership problem perhaps?

March 7, 2016 6:32 am

Are off-shore wind farms “inshore” wind farms? And what are “beaked whales”?
Yes these machines do have an effect on wildlife. You’d be a dumb ass to suggest otherwise…

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Sparks
March 7, 2016 8:16 am
March 7, 2016 8:06 am

Whales are animals like all others. They exhibit herd mentality. That is generally, there is a leader and the rest just mindlessly follow the leader. The leader is generally the eldest with the most experience or memories and is trusted by the others to be the one to follow to food, safety, etc. If that leader suffers an error or mental degeneration the rest are at risk until a new leader to follow is discovered. Fish, birds, whales or humans, all lemmings that follow the leader. Only 1 in 10 is capable of original thought,or leadership. All the rest are just followers or fans…pg

ossqss
March 7, 2016 8:31 am

Has anyone ever done an autopsy on any of the beached whales? I would wonder if they perhaps had a parasitic issue or something similar to Naegleria fowleri (trophozoites in feeding form) found in fresh water as an example. Just a though as it doesn’t appear that noise is the culprit.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  ossqss
March 7, 2016 6:32 pm

We once dissected a pigmy sperm whale which beached alive, dying overnight. It was exceptionally full of worms (Sample size only one). These were nematodes which are very invasive and could easily enter and interfere with vital organs. Buckets full in the digestive system. Have heard one theory that this could be important, but have not checked the literature. Parasitologists complain that ecologists greatly underrate their effect.

Catcracking
March 7, 2016 8:52 am

Willis,
Thanks for another well thought out posting.

Chris H
March 7, 2016 9:05 am

Willis, I generally enjoy your posts and appreciate your approach to data analysis, however, I think you may be rather too precipitate in absolving wind turbines in this instance. Wind turbines produce infrasound from two major sources, the blades and the tower. The fundamental frequency is around the blade pass frequency, around 1Hz for larger turbines and is mainly caused by turbulence as the blades pass through differing wind conditions (wind shear) and blade-tower interaction. The towers themselves generate infrasound as they act as giant tuning forks/organ pipes. This would be transmitted down through the structure and into the surrounding water. Wind turbines tend to synchronise and there will thus be nodes where emissions from other turbines will both neutralise and augment each other.
I can readily accept that infrasound from large turbine arrays has the potential to disturb whale communications and navigation. As you note, mass strandings have been recorded for centuries and there may be no linkage, however, I don’t think we can exonerate them just yet.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 3:17 pm

“People, whether blind or not, move away from irritating or confusing or dangerous situations.”
If that were true, there would be no Darwin Award winners.

F. Ross
March 7, 2016 9:13 am

Very good article Willis. Very reasonable deductions. Thanks.
(wish our submarines were down in the ambient noise region though)

Fred Harwood
March 7, 2016 12:24 pm

One of the loudest underwater noises I’ve heard was at 90 feet on a reef off of Tioman Island, which hosted thousands of shrimp and crabs clacking their claws at each other. Blocked out all other noises.

Fred Harwood
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 7, 2016 4:40 pm

Trying to sleep at anchor over grunting robin fish also was memorable. The sea provides a cacophony of loud noises that most people never hear.

Will Nelson
March 7, 2016 1:23 pm

“They are also known to drive themselves right up onto the beach to capture seals.”
…moving towel back now…

The Original Mike M
March 7, 2016 2:41 pm

Has anyone studied the affect VLF radio has on marine mammals? The radio frequencies used in VLF (~20KHz) seem to correlate to those used by the animals and the power used to broadcast in that low frequency range can be enormous – over a megawatt! Such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt

March 8, 2016 9:44 am

Thank you Willis, I do appreciate a good critique. Thank you WUWT for showing an interest in the matter. And thank you everyone for your good comments, which I just happened to read.
It is a complex matter, and it will take many years before we can form an enlightened opinion. Marine mammal experts can’t even agree on why whales, porpoises and dolphins have been beaching themselves since the beginning of times.
Logic tells us that something in the sea, somewhere, sometime, makes that milieu unbearable to them, especially where individuals pushed back to the sea by humans do come back to beach again (thanks for that reminder, Willis). Be it sound, be it infrasound, be it chemicals, all bets are open. Parasites, epidemics are other possibilities, and more that we don’t know about. The lemmings theory seems to be disproved in this case, as a couple of hundred miles separate the English from the Continental beachings.
Why did Paul Driessen and I suggest that wind turbines may be a cause? – Because they were the common denominator between the beachings in all 3 different countries, and also with another massive beaching event that occurred in Scotland in 2012. For that reason, and because the frequency of strandings in the North Sea went up seven-fold in the past decade or so, according to an article we forgot to mention…
I´ll try to find it and post it here.
Another thing did not make sense: the sperm whales that beached in England had empty stomachs. Those that stranded in Germany and Holland had their stomachs full. That’s if we are to trust everything that’s reported by journalists.
The only thing that did make sense was that the beachings all occurred in a part of the North Sea that is plagued with offshore wind farms, some operating, some under construction, some at the surveying stage (involving the use of powerful air guns to map the sea floor). Here are two maps that speak more than a thousand words: http://wcfn.org/2016/02/02/wind-turbines-and-marine-mammals/
In the circumstances, we thought it was our duty to bring that to the attention of the public, the media, and the scientific community, lest everyone soon forgets about the problematics of marine mammals and wind turbines. Years ago, when I tried to investigate on location the story of baby seals washing dead ashore at Scroby Sands, I found myself confronted to an omerta. This is how some industries go around problems: paying people to shut up.
That said, we stand to be corrected on some of our assumptions, on our reasoning, even on our conclusions. Neither of us are marine mammal biologists, and we welcome constructive criticism. Only one thing is sure: this subject is worthy of a real debate in the scientific community, and we shouldn’t let the Greens, the wind industry and their friends in government tell us that the science is settled .- It is not.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 8, 2016 6:09 pm

Thank you Willis. I will try answering tomorrow – it is getting late here in Spain.
Also, I’d like to find that article mentioning the 7-fold increase in North Sea beachings.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 9, 2016 12:43 pm

Thank you Willis. I take your point. It’s a good one.
My thoughts: when dolphins that people push back into the sea turn around and come back to beach, I find it hard to believe that it’s because something “make them think that they hear the deep ocean in the direction of the beach.” For that to be plausible, another disfunction in their brain would need to make them think that there is a wide, unsurmountable obstacle in the direction they were sent to by the rescuers. And every dolphin in the pod would need to have exactly the same screwed-up perception. The odds of this occurring are overwhelmingly against it. Besides, why would they not swim towards the perceived obstacle, to find a way around, under or above it?
Another thing: when they can feel the sand touching their tommies, it would take a stupid dolphin to continue pushing ahead until their body is half-way above the water line. The idea of suicide comes to mind readily. The question is their motivation.
This makes me think there is something unbearable in the ocean where they come from, and that they NEED to get their ears and brains out of the water, to ease the pain. Suppose surveying vessels sent by an offshore wind promoter to map the ocean floor are using powerful air guns to send unbearably strong signals into the water where dolphins are swimming. Suppose their inner ears, their sonar systems, their brains were hurt by these signals, as in the case documented by the US Navy. The acute pain would make them want to get their ears and skulls out of the water, at all costs.
Indeed, in the 2012 mass beachings, where 17 pilot whales, one minke whale and one sei whale stranded in Scotland, wind industry surveying vessels were at work at the time (in the Firth of Forth, where the strandings occurred). Swimming back towards the source of the noise (and possibly infrasound) would have been “unbearable”, and this could explain the beachings. Having their heads back in the water too, would have been unbearable.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk/campaigners-warn-seismic-surveys-for-offshore-windfarms-could-be-to-blame-for-whale-beachings-1.37117
That seems to me the most reasonable explanation. And if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then maybe it IS a duck after all.
In the case of the 29 sperm whales stranded in Jan-Feb of this year, in 3 different countries, we don’t have rock-solid evidence that some surveying was being done at the time. But looking at the map posted on wcfn.org, there are many future wind farm locations in the area, where surveying may have been carried out when the whales were nearby.
Whether wind farms in their operating phase could be causing whales to beach is a different kettle of fish. However, I know what infrasound emitted by land wind turbines can do to animals: http://wcfn.org/2014/06/07/windfarms-1600-miscarriages/
http://wcfn.org/2014/03/31/windfarms-vertebrates-and-reproduction/
And I know what they can do to people: I co-founded Victimes des Éoliennes (Victims of Wind Turbines) http://fr.friends-against-wind.org/victims about a year ago, and I am in daily contact with people who can’t sleep in their homes, and suffer all kinds of tortures because they belong to a minority of people who are hyper-sensitive to very low frequencies. It’s not the noise that’s a problem: it’s infrasound, which travels 50 km without losing much amplitude, goes through walls, and makes organs resonate inside the body. Imagining that it would affect whales underwater, where vibrations are magnified, is no difficult for me.
I need to take a break now. I have found the article mentioning the seven-fold increase in beachings in the North Sea. I´ll get back soon. Please bear with me.
Regards
Mark

nofixedaddress
March 8, 2016 12:37 pm

I figure beached whales are merely expressing a collective desire to claim their ancestral homelands.
Land Rights for Whales NOW.
Plus they are fed up with swimming around in seas and oceans.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  nofixedaddress
March 9, 2016 1:23 pm

Makes me wonder if seals are on a similar evolutionary path today that whales traversed ~45 million years ago?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 9, 2016 9:47 pm

Hi Willis. First let’s talk about the 7-fold increase:
“Sperm-whale strandings around Britain increased in the 1980s from an average of one a year to about seven. ”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2016/jan/25/why-are-so-many-whales-getting-washed-up
My comments:
it says: “around Britain”, but then “pushing juvenile males further north into the North Sea”…”into the area” (North Sea again). So, here we are: more sperm whales in the North Sea accounts for 7 times more strandings, says the pro-wind Guardian. But we don’t know that the population increased 7 times as well, do we?
You’re arguing that the increased strandings are caused by increased naval traffic, particularly warships. How many? We don’t know. Now that the Cold War is over, the reverse may be true. Anyway, you say yourself that ” in most situations they (whales) just move away from the loud sound source”.
This leaves us with an unexplained 7-fold increase in strandings in the past 35 years. I tend to put the blame on oil, gas, and windfarm surveying and pile driving. If an air gun goes off near a whale, it has no time to move away: its ear and sonar system may get hurt badly, depending on how close it was to the gun.
to be continued…

March 9, 2016 9:48 pm

Question to all: how does one indent a quote in a comment?

March 9, 2016 10:17 pm

cont’d…
You wrote:
“My objection to that line of reasoning can be stated in one word: Aristotle. If we accept your idea that something is so objectionable that they ” NEED to get their ears and brains out of the water” … then what has that objectionable something been for two thousand years and more? ”
Answer: sudden events like sound and infrasound from seaquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning, and meteorites crashing into the sea.
“1. Whale strandings have occurred throughout recorded history, and for the overwhelming majority of incidents, we know no more than Aristotle knew about the question. The number of proposed causes is quite large, and include things both inside and outside the whales.”
Answer: You recognize that the possible causes are numerous. But you don’t explain why you exclude wind farms from the list. Yet wind farm construction causes very loud noises from pile driving and from air guns (seismic surveying), much like the sound of powerful navy sonars which are known to be dangerous to whales. The wind industry itself recognizes this, and promoters respond to criticism by saying they WILL warn whales before any of these loud noises are made. But who will control this is done?
“3. Curiously, strandings are much more common among the toothed whales”
Answer: Probably because of physiological differences in their ears and sonar systems, in the frequencies they use, whatever.
“Nobody has ever shown that whale strandings are from confusion, from parasites, from infrasound, from predators, we simply don’t know. ”
Answer: That doesn’t prevent us all from suggesting answers. As you said, it’s the scientific method.
“I doubt greatly that a being that can accomplish that feat will get confused by a wind farm going thwoop, thwoop, thwoop, whether that sound might affect humans or not … “
Answer: The noise wouldn’t bother them much more than that of a boat, perhaps, but what about infrasound, what about seismic vibrations from wind turbines into the bedrock? No one has studied that. The wind industry would certainly not finance such a study. They didn’t do it for onshore turbines, because they know only too well since 1985 that wind turbines produce harmful infrasound (Neil Kelley et al. 1985).

Reply to  WCFN
March 9, 2016 10:50 pm

cont’d…
Going back to older comments you made on March 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm, you present as proof that offshore wind turbines are not noisy the fact that a study from the University of Aarhus, Denmark, says so. I have three remarks to make in this respect:
1) As I said before, noise is not the main problem where wind turbines are concerned. Infrasound is, and that was not measured by the University. The wind industry won’t let them. This leads me to my remark #2…
2) Universities are not as independent as they seem. For instance, the Aarlborg University receive research money from Denmark’s wind industry. They work hand in hand with that industry. So much so that they fired their prestigious professor in acoustics Henrik Moeller, who had the audacity to disagree with the wind industry and the government regarding low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines.
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2014/was-professor-moller-fired-because-he-told-truth-about-wind-turbine-low-frequency-noise/
3) generally speaking, all studies on wind turbines are being financed by the wind industry, sometimes the government, or both. The results are ALWAYS exonerating the wind turbines from any negative effects of significance. It’s like government-financed climate research: don’t trust any of it, let alone quote it.
In another post (March 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm) you wrote:
“My question is, pods of whales obviously traverse the North Sea on a regular basis … so why did this particular pod strand themselves, and not one other pod that has gone through the area?”
Answer: Quite simply because, when that particular pod came about, a seaquake occurred, or a seismic survey was started, or piles were being driven into the sea floor, or lightnings caused very loud noises in the water, or a meteorite crashed… etc.

Reply to  WCFN
March 9, 2016 11:18 pm

cont’d…
Coming back to your last post (March 9, 2016 at 1:45 pm), you wrote:
“So I find it very hard to believe that the rhythmic low-frequency (<1 kHz) low amplitude signal emitted by wind farms is confusing some poor whale. There are plenty of reasons to oppose offshore wind farms, from aesthetics to economics. But I fear that whales are not among them.”
Answer: I suppose surveying and pile driving are not included in this statement. You are only talking about the operating phase of wind farms, right?
Very low frequencies, particularly in the infrasound range (0 – 20 Hz) are what makes some wind farm neighbors on land very sick. Whether they make whales sick as well is an open question. The wind industry, and governments, refuse to finance studies about wind turbines and infrasound. – WHY? Because they KNOW wind turbines produce hamful infrasound (Kelley et al. 1985-87).
Your opinion, or intuition, is that whales are not bothered by wind farms. You haven't brought any proof of it, that is why I say "intuition", and that's fair enough. Scientists should have intuition. It's essential for research. However, when you assert: “ But I fear that whales are not among them”, you are shutting the door on research. You are saying: the science is settled, because I said so.
I beg to disagree with anyone saying such a thing. Anyway, I am tired, and you are probably tired as well. I will write a new article on whales and wind farms, and post it on wcfn.org – unless WUWT would like to have the exclusive for a couple of days.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 10, 2016 6:21 pm

Willis,
You wrote:
“But the sounds you’ve listed are one-offs. If a meteorite crashed into the sea, it might scare the whales up onto the beach … but it wouldn’t keep them from going back into the water one the sound and the fright were over.”
>> Answer: We don’t know that they ALWAYS refuse to go back into the ocean. In many cases, they are dead when found. In others, they are too heavy to move..
Besides, it could be a new behavior when, and only when, human-made blasts are being repeated.
>> It could also be that the pain in their damaged inner ears and brains is more acute underwater. In that case, even one-off events would make them not want to go back underwater.
“No, the scientific method is not to guess, it is to TEST the possibilities. ”
>> Answer: You put the cart before the horse. Without a guess, without a hypothesis to test, there is no testing. And the hypothesis I propose is this one: some or all cetaceans that beach may be doing it because the pain in their damaged ears and brains (sonar cavities) is lesser in the air than under water, particularly when the blasts are being repeated (air guns, sonars, pile-driving, lightnings…). Ear pain can be unbearable, so imagine that plus acute pain in a sonar cavity, inside the head…
“True … and no one has studied whether it is gamma rays either …”
Being facecious? Why not!?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 10, 2016 6:53 pm

You wrote:
“Again, this is uncited, unsupported speculation. Might be true, might not. ”
>> Nope! There is abundant, independant literature supporting the view that infrasound emitted by wind turbines make some people sick. Even government studies from 1985-87 (NASA’s Kelley et al) and a recent one financed by a honest wind promoter in Australia (truly an exception), by acoustician Steven Cooper.
>> Anyway, under the scientific method, speculation (ie hypothesis) is the first step to take. Then comes testing. There would be no science without the first step: speculation. (or second if you want, observation coming first, obviously).
“My evidence is that we have had offshore windfarms for some years now in areas that are regularly traversed by whales. If they did confuse whales, we would have them crashing into the coast all the time … but we don’t. That is evidence that the effect, if it exists, must be very weak, or we’d see whales beaching all the time. ”
>> You’re forgetting the wind farms’ construction phase, again. If no whales happened to pass near the construction site when air guns were being blasted or piles driven into the bedrock, there would be no beachings. Besides, beachings may have occurred that were not related by the media; or that were but that nobody linked to the blasts; or that occurred days later and many miles away. How long does it take before a whale is in such pain that it decides to beach itself? (assuming my hypothesis is correct).
>> Regarding the operational phase of wind farms: cetaceans can leave the area if they feel disconfort from infrasound. So the harm done would not be lasting. The wind farms would just be reducing their habitat. But it would also add to the stress that beleaguers them since man started to hunt them, then polluted the oceans with plastic, nets, lines and hooks, noise and infrasound.
>> “RESEARCHERS say an ocean experiment that was accidentally conducted amid the shipping silence after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks has shown the first link between underwater noise and stress in whales.
The analysis was led by a New England Aquarium researcher. It showed a drop in the stress-related hormone in right whales following the attacks.
>> “THE steady drone of motors along busy commercial shipping lanes not only alters whale behaviour, but can affect the giant sea mammals physically by causing chronic stress, a study published today has reported for the first time.
>> “But over the long haul, constant elevations of the hormone due to stressful situations becomes a detriment, leading to stunted growth, a weakened immune system and a compromised ability to reproduce.”
http://austlane.com.au/a430570/root_hrefSharePath
>> So I ask: what will be the long term effect of stress on cetacean populations, given their weakened immune system?
“Perhaps you have not noticed that although you think you have trashed the study I referred to, in fact you have not said one single word about the study, you’re just casting shade on the authors … and that means nothing about the validity of the study. ”
>> If someone hands you a study on climate by Michael Mann, will you spend your valuable time reading and analysing it? (unless you want to do a thorough hatchet job).
>> I have spent 14 years analysing wind-industry-financed-studies on bird and bat mortality, and found that all modern ones are biased and cannot be trusted.
I have no reason to believe their studies on whales are any different. Hence the comparison with a Michael Mann study.
Regards
Mark

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
March 12, 2016 12:53 am

Willis,
In the same manner, if you google “climate change”, you’ll find mostly studies that say climate change is caused by man, and only a few marginal ones saying it’s a load of nonsense. So, if you look at that with an “objective” mindset, you’ll conclude that “97% of scientists” endorse the AGW theory. And you’ll be wrong.
In a world where politics and money are corrupting science, you can’t go around googling for studies and give credit to the ones that are published by the most reputable scientific journals. These journals are bought, or didn’t you know?
The same thing that has happened with climate change is happening with wind farms. It’s one and the same gigantic fraud. Forget about official studies on infrasound emitted by wind turbines: the only ones that were truthful were the Kelley studies published by NASA in 1985-87. Those studies were shelved in 1987 because they would have stopped the wind industry in its tracks. They surfaced again in 2015 thanks to dedicated, unpaid sceptics who dug deep and unearthed them at long last. Yet, scientific journals continue to ignore the issue, the big media ignore it as well, and the studies are only being discussed in marginal sceptic media – as is happening for studies that rubbish climate change.
I don’t blame you for believing what you read in official studies on wind farms: “97%” of people do as you do. I am just saying: careful, what you see is not what you get.
One example: you quote the conclusions of the Journal of the Canadian Acoustic Association, which start with this nonsense:
“Infrasound from wind turbines is below the audible threshold and of no consequence.”
Of course infrasound is below the audible threshold! It’s the very definition of infrasound to be below the audible threshold! How inane is that argument!
Think of it for a minute. It’s like saying: ultra violet rays from the sun are not visible to the human eye, therefore they are of no consequence.
Go to a tropical beach and offer your bare skin to the sun for a couple of hours. Then come back and tell me that UVs are of no consequence…
See what I mean?
What I am saying is: be as skeptical of official wind industry science as you are of official climate science. Both are doctored.
Two last points, which will help you realize that what I am talking about is real.
1) Only a small minority of people living near wind farms feels the effects of infrasound. Generally speaking, these are the same people who suffer from motion sickness. Nobody denies that people who are seasick are really feeling sick to their stomachs; that’s because if you’re sitting next to one in a boat, you’ll see that unfortunate person throw up. But as you are unlikely to have spent 24 hours with a windfarm victim in his or her house, you’ll be tempted to say, like the wind industry: poppycock! It’s psychological! If they made money from the turbines near their homes, they would love them!
I, on the other hand, have stayed overnight in the house of two of these victims. I am in daily contact with them by email. I am also in contact with a dozen others. I talk to Dr Sarah Laurie frequently, and to physicians and other great people around the planet who are fighting tooth and nail to get the wind turbine syndrome officially recognized (remember how long it took to get the authorities to admit there was a problem with tobacco?). I have read a number of papers from those courageous physicians, acousticians and other health professionals who are blowing the whistle on this issue. I can tell you it’s not a joke. That’s why I am confident when I say that there IS a health problem associated with wind turbines.
Another thing: this minority of people who can actually hear infrasound are the canary in the mine. The majority, which can’t hear infrasound, and sleep normally in their homes near wind farms, will feel the effects down the line as their general health deteriorates. But they won’t realize what’s causing it.
It wasn’t so bad when wind turbines were generating 500 kW, 750 kW. 1 MW.
But the modern ones with a capacity of 2, 2,5, or 3MW are emitting pulsating infrasound of much greater amplitude, making more people sick. So, imagine how much infrasound emits an 8MW wind turbine – the kind they build for offshore wind farms.
2) We’re not talking about the seemingly gentle thwoop-thwoop-thwoop you describe. We’re talking about a strong acoustical signal of about 1 Hz that is emitted by a 15-ton blade as it passes in front of the mast at over 100 mph. Did you know that blade tips travel at speeds up to 180 mph? Birds and bats don’t know that either. Looking at a wind turbine, you’d think the blades turn slowly – thwoop-thwoop-thwoop. But if you take a piece of paper, and put the rotor diameter x 3,14 x rpm x 60 minutes, you’ll discover that the blade tips are moving as fast as a formula 1 car. Few people realize that.
Regards
Mark