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:
Figure 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.

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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis – I have a bit of a problem with this comment: “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”
I know a lot of people who cross the ocean as part of their job – many of them have a very narrow field of experience. I also know a lot of fishermen who have never crossed the ocean but have worked in the industry all their lives – they probably know more about the ocean than most people!
Also, using your analogy – those who do not work with or study whales should not be writing about them 🙂
You’re overthinking it, JBJ. I suggested in a humorous and obviously exaggerated way that people should not write about things where they are clueless. The issue is not really whether they’ve crossed the ocean. It is whether they know what they are talking about. Obviously, some people who have never seen the ocean (or whales for that matter) can write knowledgeably about it … but others, not so much.
Regards,
w.
So what knowledge do you have about whales other than reading a few papers and seeing them at sea. I have been a marine mammal observer for a long time and would really like to test you in your knowledge base, including identification skills!
JBJ March 11, 2016 at 4:34 pm
Thanks, JBJ, but I’ll pass on your guaranteed-to-fail-me test. The question is not whether I can tell a beluga whale from an albino balloon at five hundred paces.
The only relevant question is whether the statements I’ve made about whales are valid and accurate or not. That is the only issue worth discussing. Whether I can name the different kinds of cetaceans and place them in the proper location on the evolutionary tree doesn’t matter. I’ve said a bunch of things about whales, statements which I believe to be true. Unless and until you can show that one or more of my statements are wrong, and so far you have not done so for even one of them, I’d say I’m doing quite well regarding whales …
Let me close with my quote from my previous post, which is apposite in this situation:
Regards,
w.
Willis: You wrote, ““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,”
Clicks are for odontocetes (toothed whales). Humpbacks are mysticetes (baleen whales). The way sounds are produced by those two groups of whales are as different as their mouth structures. In odontocetes, the clicks are created by “tapping” the forehead and mysticetes create high decibel sounds by passing air in their larynx. Large odontocetes (such as sperm whales) will use loud clicks for “sonic debilitation” of prey, whereas, the loud “screams” of humpbacks is used to herd and confuse schooling fish within the “bubble nets.”
I caution all not to generalize an entire order of mammals. To suggest that all whales mass strand is the equivalent of saying that all primates live in trees. Mass standings tend to occur in large odontocetes, such as pilot whales and sperm whales. Mysticetes, not being so gregarious as odontocetes, tend not to mass strand. If several mysticetes strand in a region over a relatively short period of time, a UME (unusual mortality event) may be investigated, but usually turns out to be unrelated events.
Pieter F. March 10, 2016 at 8:34 am
Thanks for the correction, Pieter. OK, everyone replace “clicks” with “screams” in their understanding of my statement abut humpbacks, and we can move forwards.
I’m not sure who you think is “generalizing” here. I said the following:
How on earth is that a generalization?
But perhaps you are talking about something entirely different, said by someone entirely different. Since you did not have the common courtesy to follow my request and QUOTE WHAT IT IS THAT HAS YOUR KNICKERS IN A TWIST, I truly have no clue what has upset you.
And speaking of “generalization”, you say that mysticetes are not as gregarious as odontocetes … which like most generalizations is generally true. That’s why we use them … but to misquote an acquaintance of mine, “to suggest that all mysticetes are not as gregarious as odontocetes is the equivalent of saying that all primates live in trees.” Pieter, we all use generalizations, INCLUDING YOU, and the generalizations all have limitations, so please cut back on your patronizing tone …
In fact, one of the largest mass whale strandings in history was of mysticetes, 337 of these “non-gregarious” creatures … and humpback whales (also mysticetes) live in pods of up to 15 individuals, so your generalization is simply not true. Not that it matters to me, because I understand that generalizations all have their limitations … but it seems it matters to you.
Finally, your claim that odontocetes make their clicks by “”tapping” the forehead” is not supported by the literature. From 2013:
SOURCE: Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans
In other words, nobody knows how they make their clicks, including you …
Best regards, and how do whales “tap their foreheads” in any case?
w.
PS—On the Gregariousness of Mystecetes:
Humpbacks: travel in pods of up to 15 individuals
Sei whales: travel in pods of up to 6 individuals
Blue whales: travel individually or in small pods
Right whales: travel in individually or in pods of 2 or 3
Bowhead whales: travel in pods of up to 6
Minke whales: travel alone or in pods of 2 – 3
Fin whales: travel alone or in pods of 2 – 3
Gray whales also migrate in small groups and gather in large ones.
Let me quote the conclusions of the New Zealand study I linked to above:
This is by far the largest, most detailed, and most complete study of strandings that I’ve found. It discusses all of the various theories which have been put forwards for the strandings, and shows whether they are supported or not by the actual distribution and nature of the historical New Zealand strandings. It is a tour de force of a study, fascinating if you are interested in the subject of whale strandings.
w.
“It discusses all of the various theories which have been put forwards for the strandings”
>> New Zealand has no offshore oil and gas platforms, has it? What about offshore windfarms? Does its naval forces conduct loud sonar exercises?
I doubt it. Correct me if I am wrong.
>> So, its studies are only looking at natural strandings.
>> However, these include those associated with seaquakes, underwater volcanic explosions, meteorites and lightnings, which have the same effects as man made explosions and like noises (air guns, powerful sonars, pile driving).
Does the study talk about seaquakes, underwater volcanic explosions, meteorites and lightnings?
WCFN March 13, 2016 at 6:40 pm
It does not. The problem with those putative causes is several-fold.
First, as we have seen in the Bahamas sonar strandings, the animals went ashore wherever they were. And that makes sense. If your sonar is blown out by loud noise, you’re more likely to run aground nearby. In the New Zealand strandings, on the other hand, they were clustered at specific locations on the coast.
Second, sound in the open ocean falls off as the square of the distance. Let’s assume that lightning strikes a kilometer away. Per Figure 1, the intensity is say 200 dB at a distance of one metre from the source. That means that at 1000 metres, the sound is only one millionth as strong. That is sixty decibels, or six orders of magnitude. This means that the sound at 1000 metres is only about 140 decibels, well below the vocalization strength of most whales.
The same is even more true about big undersea earthquakes, volcanoes, or meteorites. First, the animals would not be clustered at certain sites. Second, the odds of an earthquake occurring that close is slight, simply because earthquakes are nowhere near as common as lightning.
Next, you say:
Thanks, Mark. Unfortunately, I looked there, and I didn’t find one thing I need. Let me remind you what I said, as I was quite specific about my needs:
I fear that your site didn’t have a single one of those, or if they were there I’ll need more detailed directions, as I was unable to find anything even remotely resembling what I asked for. Instead of info on how underwater infrasound affects whales, all I could find was information about how low frequency sound affects people. Good information, and I’m sure the usual percentage of it is true, but nothing about whales.
My best to you,
w.
Mark, you say:
I’m sorry, I see I haven’t been clear. I do believe that people are affected by sound coming from wind turbines, just as you describe.
What I don’t believe is that people are affected by infrasound from wind turbines. Infrasound is generally defined as sound waves with a frequency of less than 20 Hz. All of the scientific data I’ve seen says windmills generate very little infrasound.
I suspect that you and the people in question are not talking about infrasound, but instead about the 1-2 Hz “thwop-thwop-thwop” sound made by the turbine blades. And it is true that this sound can carry a long way, and that some people seem to be more sensitive to it and affected by it than other people, just as you report.
But it is not true is that they are being affected by infrasound. Instead, what they are experiencing are individual pulses of sound of a much higher frequency than infrasound. This signal is very different from infrasound. Infrasound is a pressure wave that can be thought of as sinusoidal and continuously varying.
The “thwop-thwop” sound, on the other hand, is composed of periods of silence interspersed with short bursts of higher frequency noise. Despite the fact that the bursts of high frequency sound from the turbine blade passage occur at intervals of one half to one second (1-2 Hz), the “thwop-thwop” is not infrasound. It is pulsed higher-frequency sound.
Best regards,
w.
You wrote: “I suspect that you and the people in question are not talking about infrasound, but instead about the 1-2 Hz “thwop-thwop-thwop” sound made by the turbine blades.
>> You’re confusing sound and infrasound. “Thwop-thwop-thwop” is a sound. Its frequency is not 1 – 2 Hz, but higher, above 20 Hz because everybody can hear it.
>> Infrasound is a different animal. It travels through walls and insulated windows up to 20 or more miles, and it cannot be heard. It can be “felt” by a super sensitive minority of people, though. They feel it as a pressure in the ear, in the brain, a headache, a nausea, a fast heart-beat, a tinnitus, a difficulty to concentrate, etc. Above all, these vibrations that resonate inside their organs disrupt their sleep. They wake up in the middle of the night in a state of panic, and can’t get back to sleep. Forget about the “thwop-thwop-thwop”. I know you like the gentle sound of it. But make no mistake: “thwop-thwop-thwop” is a sound. Infrasound is something you don’t hear.
>> You don’t believe infrasound from wind turbines is hurting people because 1) you’ve never known some of the people that are affected, at Falmouth, Mass. for instance (look it up) – I mean talked to them, if not heard them cry. 2) all you’ve read when googling infrasound and wind farms are studies put up by the wind industry, all concluding that infrasound emitted by their wares is negligible.
What you actually need is an education on this complex matter. I can’t provide it to you. But if you go to http://waubrafoundation.org.au/ you’ll find all the stuff you need, including the OZ Senate hearings on the matter, and its conclusions, which are that infrasound IS a problem for residents.
Willis,
There is some confusion resulting from what I believe is a site malfunction: 1) not all posts have a “reply” button, 2) some earlier posts appear as being the most recent ones. So what I´ll do is quote the date of the post I am replying to.
On March 12, 2016 at 2:14 am , you wrote:
“I have also given you two studies of underwater wind-farm infrasound, along with a meta-analysis of all studies done on underwater wind-farm infrasound.”
>> Infrasound is not measured in these studies. Please correct me if I am wrong, quoting the words evidencing they do. It would be most surprising if they did, as the official position is that wind turbines don’t emit significant infrasound, therefore it does not need to be measured. Which is much like the position of the tobacco industry decades ago.
“So yes, infrasound (sound below 20 Hz) can indeed be audible if it is loud enough.”
>> Very loud infrasound may be heard further down the scale, possibly to 12-10 Hz. But some people who are hyper sensitive to low frequencies can hear it below that, even if not so loud. At some point they “feel” it more than they hear it. It becomes quite complex with the harmonics.
“The issue is that the underwater infrasound is very weak, and they and a number of other scientists have measured just how weak it is.”
>> I believe you are confusing infrasound with sound. I refer you to my first reply above. Please quote the exact words that make you think they measured infrasound emitted by wind turbines underwater. It is MOST unlikely.
“If you’d like to convince people that you are right, you need to come up with:
1. A scientific study that shows that wind farm generated underwater infrasound is strong enough to be an issue, and
2. A scientific study that shows that infrasound of whatever power your scientific study says wind farms generate has an effect on whales, and
3. A study, article, or other serious analysis that provides some evidence for the giant wind-farm underwater infrasound conspiracy.”
>> You’re jumping over the phases of the scientific process. I only proposed a theory. Now it needs to be verified. Don’t ask me to do everyting at once, or give me a budget, say 40 million dollars, to hire a good team of independent scientists, the equipment etc.
>> As for point 3, I can prove (in fact I have proved) cover up and conflicts of interest regarding studies about bird mortality at wind farms. Friends of mine, who are working on the health angle, could prove to you the same corruption (call it conspiracy if you like, as in this world money creates thousands of “conspiracies” everyday) regarding infrasound emitted by wind turbines and its effect on people.
>> And as we all know here on WUWT, the biggest “conspiracy” of all is that of global warming, which is muting into climate change, and would mute into global cooling if temperatures suddenly dropped and kept dropping (which they will do, starting this year, when El Niño tapers off).
>> When scientists, whole universities, and the media can be bought, the biggest lies can be told thousands of times, and the public will believe them. Now don’t ask me to make a presentation on all these things. I haven’t got the time. I am busy enough fighting wind industry stooges all over the place.
Willis,
On March 12, 2016 at 3:35 am you wrote:
“What I don’t believe is that people are affected by infrasound from wind turbines “
>> So, I directed you to the Waubra Foundation, which is at the cutting edge of the worldwide fight to help wind farm victims get recognized. But in another post on March 14, 2016 at 12:48 am , you evidenced a misunderstanding as you thought you would find on their site studies about whales. No, I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly. What you will find on http://waubrafoundation.org.au/ is the best available proof that wind turbines emit infrasound that makes some neighbors sick, really sick. And as co-founder of a group of windfarm victims in France, I can vouch personally that their suffering is real.
Continuing with your post of March 14, 2016 at 12:48 am you wrote:
“If your sonar is blown out by loud noise, you’re more likely to run aground nearby.“
>> This is not self-evident. Your sonar could be just damaged, not “blown out”. And the pain may be going crescendo. Did you ever have severe ear-pain? After 24 – 36 hours, it becomes unbearable.
Hence the strandings, IMHO.
“Second, sound in the open ocean falls off as the square of the distance. “
>> I was led to believe the opposite. Aren’t whales supposed to communicate over many miles? Isn’t the New Navy sonar so powerful it can be heard across the ocean? (see the quote and reference in my article, the one you criticized).
>> Then you go on repeating your demand that I provide you with a study proving my point etc.
As I said, my theory is that air guns or pile-driving-bangs from wind farms under construction in the North Sea damaged the ears and/or sonars of the 29 sperm whales that stranded in Jan-Feb 2016, and those of the 20-odd whales that stranded in Scotland in 2012. Severe pain is what made them seek to get their heads out of the water, hence the beachings.
I don’t believe these intelligent animals would either willingly commit suicide, or unwittingly run aground on a beach. As you rightly pointed out, orcas catch seals on the beach, and if I may add, dolphins catch fish by corraling them up the mud banks of Chesapeake Bay, where they go snap them up, their bodies half way on land. By the way, whales never run aground on rocks. Always on beaches, sand bars or mud flats. I would say they choose a comfortable place where they can rest their heads out of the water, to ease the pain. But then comes a receding tide, and their body weight slowly suffocates them.
>> This is my theory, and this report comforts me in my thoughts:
https://iwc.int/2008-mass-stranding-in-madagascar
>> Regarding the operating phase of wind turbines, we’d need to measure underwater infrasound and seismic vibrations emitted by the new, giant 8 MW wind machines. It’s a daunting task that hasn’t been done. But it is clear to me that whales and dolphins don’t need more factors of stress where they live. BTW, have you seen the latest news? The US govt is funding research into a 2,200 feet tall, 50 MW wind turbine http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-cutting-edge-windmills-20160313-story.html
Best regards
Mark
Mark, I give up. I have asked you three times for the following:
I haven’t gotten one study on any of those.
Any time you want to join the scientific revolution and back up your underwater windmill infrasound claim with some actual science, let me know. Because up to date, all we have are your earnest exhortations about windmills and whales, and I am a man for data. Facts. Studies of observations. Measurements of sound levels. Observations of windmills changing whale behavior.
You have given us none of that. Instead, you give us things like this:
That’s a great theory, but you have absolutely no information to back it up. We don’t know whether there was even pile driving in that area at that time. You haven’t given us data on piledriving in the rest of the ocean. You haven’t provided information on the noise created by pile driving. It’s all just a brilliant theory, but it is totally devoid of any observational support of any kind. Yes, there are windmills in the North Sea.Yes, whales beach themselves in the North Sea. And your theory may actually connect them, and it might actually be valid.
But without evidence, you are a thousand miles from establishing even a correlation, much less a causation, and you’re not moving towards your goal.
I invite you to come back when you do have some actual scientific info on whales and windmills … but until then, I’m not interested in whether you are right that infrasound from windmills is causing worldwide ereptile dysfunction in the unsuspecting populace, or whatever it is you think they cause.
Instead, I’m interested in whales and windmills.
All the best,
w.
Willis,
You wrote:
“I have asked you three times for the following: …” (studies proving that wind farms are dangerous for whales)
>> You’re being repetitive. Worse: as I have replied to your request at least twice, what you are telling us is that you don’t care if I reply or not, you’ll just keep repeating your mantra. That’s downright dishonest, intellectually speaking.
“We don’t know whether there was even pile driving in that area at that time. “
>> Being intellectually dishonest again! In the 2012 Scotland beachings quoted in my article*, we know that surveying had been going on in the Firth of Forth shortly before the beachings occurred. It was wind farm related, and air guns were used.
>> Dishonest too, your wriggling away from embarrassing errors you make, such as when you are confusing audible sound and infrasound. Or when you say that sound and infrasound (it’s the same to you) rapidly dissipate in water, when we know the contrary to be true, that whales communicate through many miles of water, and that potent Navy sonars can be heard hundreds, if not thousands of miles away (documented in my article). Heck, the wind industry itself acknowledged that their pile driving can be heard up to 50 miles underwater!
>> You are defending wind farms by quoting a study from windfarm-friendly Aarhus University, pretending that the said study has measured infrasound emitted by wind turbines underwater. When I reply that it hasn’t, you change the subject.
>> When I refer you to independent studies appearing on the Waubra Foundation website, you dismiss them by saying you only care about effects of wind turbines on whales, not on people. When I refer you to a well-studied mass stranding event that occurred in 2008 in Madagascar, and which offers clues about man made noise and possibly infrasound on whale beachings, you ignore it and choose to close the debate instead.
“It’s all just a brilliant theory,” you say of my article. (1)
>> Well yes, I did say it was only a theory, a hypothesis that needs to be verified. And thank you for calling it “brilliant”. But even as you recognized its quality, you are shooting the messenger, as if theories were not at the origin of progress in science.
It’s intellectual dishonesty at work, again.
Have a nice day
Mark
(1) the article I co-authored with Paul Driessen: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/are-vibrations-from-offshore-wind-turbine-farms-killing-whales/
WCFN March 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm
Thanks, Mark. If that is the case I’ve not been able to find them. Could you please repost the two links to the studies that you say you’ve provided above, as they’ve gone right past me.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
In reply to your request, I said it would take a budget of, say, $40 million to verify my theory. At least I have the merit of proposing a novel hypothesis, ie that whales and dolphins beach themselves to rest their ears and brains out of the water, to ease the pain. Then, the low tide traps them, and they die.
Causes of the pain may be natural or man-made. Among the latter, the offshore wind industry (air guns and pile-driving).
Regards
Mark
Mark, in response to my request for data to back up your hypothesis, you say it will take $40 million dollars to provide data.
Um … er … OK.
It’s been great, but without data your flights of fantasy are less than useful. Let me suggest to you that if you wish to have a hope of having the hypothesis ever accepted, that you investigate the data that already exists out there.
For example, there are hydrophones all over the world that record underwater sounds. If the ocean periodically gets so loud in the low frequencies (or any frequencies) as to injure living animals, there must be recordings of whatever that noise might be.
And there certainly are records of the known underwater eruptions. You could see if you could match up the eruptions with whale strandings.
Then there are earthquakes. Undersea earthquakes are routinely recorded by seismographs all over the planet. Seems like that would be a natural, lots of data. Get undersea earthquake records and compare them to whale strandings.
Then there is lightning … Thanks to the satellites, we now know the areas where it is more and less common. Are those the same areas where whales strand?
What you need to do is what I had to do when I came up with my hypothesis that emergent phenomena act to keep the global temperature within a very narrow range (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th century). I had to go and root through piles and piles of evidence, and think about just where and how I might come up with observations, any observations, that would support my hypothesis. And in the end I’ve found a significant pile of said evidence.
Your problem is that at present all you are doing is waving your hands and saying it might be underwater volcanoes … or lightning strikes … or infrasound from wind farms … or air guns … or sonar …
And yes, you might be correct, it might be loud underwater noises that are causing whales to beach. But it might also be any one of half a dozen other equally probable causes.
In addition, you are not doing your cause any good by your refusal to recognize and discuss the scientific evidence that is actually out there. I have given you three scientific studies, one of which was an meta-analysis of all of the studies of underwater sound from wind farms. All of them came to the same conclusion—at its loudest, infrasound from wind farms barely makes it out of the background.
Now, you think you’ve refuted these studies by casting shade on the authors … sorry, while that might work on the alarmist side, skeptics know that all that matters is whether the study is sound or not. Without evidence to back you up, whether you think there is a windfarm conspiracy doesn’t matter any more than where the authors work. All that matter is whether their findings are valid.
I’m left with scientific studies from all over the world saying windfarms make little infrasound on one hand … and on the other hand, your uncited, unsubstantiated claims of a giant worldwide conspiracy to muffle the reports of underwater windfarm infrasound. (You like that? Muffle the reports of sound? An aural trifecta … but I digress.)
And given a choice between the cited referenced scientific studies, and your claims of a global underwater infrasound conspiracy … while I laud your efforts on behalf of whales, I’m still gonna go for the studies …
Best regards to you, and seriously, I do think there is evidence out there to support or falsify your theory, and I wish you the best in the search.
w.
Willis,
You keep skirting the issue of air guns and pile-driving, which is central.
Regarding the operating phase of wind farms, you say “All of them (studies) came to the same conclusion—at its loudest, infrasound from wind farms barely makes it out of the background.!”
But these studies are about audible sound, not infrasound. How many times must I correct you on that?
You’re trying to kill the messenger of a new theory because it doesn’t square with existing studies commissioned by the climate-industrial complex. Hmm… !
BW
Mark
WCFN March 17, 2016 at 7:46 pm
You have not provided a scrap of data implicating either air guns or pile driving in whale beachings, so to date there is nothing to “skirt”. Put up some data and we can discuss it.
Now you are simply making things up. I quoted the dang studies for you upthread, and I’ll do it again (emphasis mine):
Notice something about those quotations? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY SAID INFRASOUND, so your claim that
is simply nonsense. Do you even read the quotations I’m posting?
And do you realize how asinine and stupidly patronizing you look when you get all snippy about “correcting me”, when you obviously haven’t even bothered to read what I quoted?
You go on to say …
Hogwash. I’m trying to get you to back up your theory with supporting data, and pointing out that without supporting data a hypothesis isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Wake up, I’m not your enemy. I’m trying to HELP you by encouraging you to find the data to support your theory.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Sorry if I sounded patronizing, but you’re not innocent either in that respect.
Anyway, let’s get on…
You wrote: “You have not provided a scrap of data implicating either air guns or pile driving in whale beachings, so to date there is nothing to “skirt”.”
>> Incorrect. The article Paul and I quoted about the 2012 beachings in Scotland clearly mentions surveying with air guns for a wind farm project in the Firth of Forth, a couple of days before the beachings. Now, don’t ask me for more data than that at this stage of the game. I may, or may not, have more time to invest into the subject later on.
>> The Guardian aired a ridiculous theory to whitewash wind farms, one that isn’t supported by one iota of evidence. We denounced that in our article, proposing another theory. We are more than justified to do so, as we have at least some circumstantial evidence (the 2012 beachings). Our purpose was NOT to write a scientific paper, but a press article informing the public that there are different opinions as to why those whales beached in a huge wind farm zone. We quoted some studies and articles to support our opinion, but I repeat, we are NOT scientists, and this is NOT a scientific paper. It is in fact a rebuttal of the Guardian’s article.
“… you obviously haven’t even bothered to read what I quoted”
>> Wrong. YOU haven’t read my replies to what you quoted, eg:
you quote: “• Infrasound from wind turbines is below the audible threshold and of no consequence.”
>> This is given in the Conclusions. If you read the Methodology, you’ll find they did not bother to measure infrasound. And I told you before something along these lines: saying that infrasound is below the audible threshold is a tautology, and arguing that because of that it is of no consequence is like saying that Ultra Violet light can’t be seen therefore it isn’t harmful. Yet it can burn your skin to a toast.
>> The two other quotes from the other studies use the same inane argument. They only care for audible sound. It it’s not audible, they pretend, it’s not worth bothering about, let alone measure it. These silly arguments attract the same answer as above (the example of the UV’s)
Best wishes
Mark