By David Wojick
Systematic statistical analysis indicates that offshore wind development has likely been killing lots of whales since it began around 2016. This long-standing conjecture that wind kills whales may be confirmed.
Call it forensic statistical epidemiology. The epidemic is the huge number of Northwest Atlantic whale deaths that were first officially observed by NOAA in 2016-17, and that continued to this day. It is forensic because killing whales can be highly illegal.
This math feat was performed by Apostolos Gerasoulis, a Rutgers professor emeritus of computer science. This is a computer math problem, not a biological one, so he is exceptionally qualified. See https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/people/professors/details/gerasoulis-apostolos
Professor Gerasoulis has confirmed with profound statistical evidence the widespread conjecture that offshore wind sonar surveys have been killing whales. There is now no reasonable doubt that the extensive sonar harassment authorized by NOAA since 2016 has caused the massive increase in whale deaths that NOAA first flagged in 2016-17.
Here is a lengthy article that provides some of that compelling evidence:
Given that I and others have been yelling at NOAA about this for two years, it is not a stunning discovery to us, just tragic proof that we were right. For example:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/27/how-to-kill-whales-with-offshore-wind
And https://www.cfact.org/2023/01/23/evidence-says-offshore-wind-development-is-killing-lots-of-whales/
I have repeatedly pointed out that the overall Humpback Whale death rate doubled when sonar blasting began. Gerasoulis finds that in the region where the surveying was most active, the death rate jumped to an astonishing five times greater.
It took a computer guru to do this pioneering work because it is a complex computation problem. He geographically logged all of the deaths and all of the sonar blasting routes over time, then looked at the correlations, which are profound. It is statistically impossible that these correlations between sonar blasting and dead whales are just a coincidence.
Note that the sonar blasting does not kill the whales outright. It is predicted by NOAA to change the whale’s behavior, so all it has to do is change it in deadly ways, such as causing a ship strike. It is actually expected by NOAA that some whales will be deafened.
Here is a telling analogy. A firecracker thrown at a dog causes it to run into the street and be struck by a car. The car killed the dog, but the firecracker caused the death. In science, this is called the first cause (firecracker) versus the final cause (car strike) of the dog’s death. Sonar blasting is like an endless string of firecrackers going off, lasting for hours or even days.
The press has consistently ignored the warnings, never reporting the potentially adverse effects of “harassment”, as it is officially called. That widespread acoustic harassment is actually predicted and authorized by NOAA is never even mentioned. Even worse, NOAA never mentions it in their online material on the whale death crisis despite it being pointed out to them repeatedly.
Unfortunately, the incredibly loud pile driving that is now starting at the offshore wind construction sites is even worse than the sonar blasting. The NOAA harassment authorization numbers are much higher, ten times higher in some cases. We, therefore, expect the deaths to increase unless decisive action is taken.
Now that the numbers indicate that authorized harassment is likely the cause of widespread whale death, something must be done to stop the carnage. If NOAA continues to authorize potentially deadly harassment without first studying the data, and if wind developers continue unabated, each whale death is a reckless violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Gerasoulis‘s statistical model may even tell us when this happens.
Given this compelling new evidence, if NOAA still refuses to act, then either the President or Congress should do so. Acoustic harassment is ongoing, and whales may be dying from it. This reckless killing of whales must stop.
Photo creative commons Brocken Inaglory, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” – Mark Twain
A line that’s usually quoted by experts in lies and damned lies, but not statistics.
As in Polling results?
I think you both need to clarify by adding the word “honest”?
(Maybe still wrong but NOT an attempt to deceive.) 😎
Statics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.
And all in aid of “saving the planet” from an imaginary hobgoblin.
The whales don’t matter.
The birds and bats don’t matter.
Pristine wilderness and heritage forests don’t matter.
News Tip
https://strangesounds.org/2024/07/1-million-farm-animals-in-danger-of-starving-to-death-as-patagonia-argentina-experiences-one-of-its-coldest-winters-in-last-decades.html
Very nice David. There is one sure fire solution. Sound emitting devices need to be installed in all NOAA offices and worksites as well as all wind sales and construction worksites as well as all journal out fits that poo poo the issue away. The devices must emit harmful levels. The issue will be solved in less than a week.
Trump trumpets
An honest statistical analysis showed that Mann’s Hooky was just that, BS.
The analysis was ignored. It didn’t fit the meme.
I hope it doesn’t, but why expect this statistical analysis to be treated any differently?
Big money and Power (not from wind. Authority) behind ignoring it.
Trump has promised to protect the whales. This might help by giving good grounds for grounding wind.
During the Cold War the US Navy was pilloried for using sonar in anti-submaring exercises because of injuries to whales. I guess the pecking order, from bottom to top, is: National Security -> Whales -> Windmills.
Maybe today you should reverse that list?
(I was going to add a ” 😎 ” but it’s true and nothing to laugh about.)
The irony is our communists have declared war on climate change so they can burn the village to save it.
Shades of Vietnam War. Get rid of the hidden Viet Cong by razing the village.
I followed all the links, but found zero evidence to back up the ludicrous “100%” claim (nothing is ever that certain). I also find no evidence the individual has qualifications in sound propagation, statistics or any other relevant discipline. But when you’re clutching at straws, any straw will do I guess.
“This is a computer math problem, not a biological one, so he is exceptionally qualified.”
So rather than provide any objective critique of the professor’s methods and conclusions you just attack him for scientifically loose language (the “ludicrous” 100% claim being the professor’s words – he’s evidently confident in his conclusions) and raise irrelevant questions about his qualifications. You’d know all about clutching at straws.
Why are you so keen for him to be wrong?
The problem is simple, there is no study to critique, only a highly unlikely assertion. I’m happy to debate the evidence, but there is none, nada, zero. Can I be clearer?
You apparently did not read the linked articles.
Ok. Giving the benefit of the doubt, you are playing a skeptic card and if that is true, good for you.
I saw sufficient factual information presented to give credibility to the conclusions.
You want to see the numbers/data and the algorithms and assumptions. Fair enough.
The same might be said about the many climate scientists hawking CAGW. Hansen, Mann, etc. all have degrees in radiative physics and thermodynamics, right? They all have advanced degrees in statistics also I bet! How about the math degrees that allow 3D analysis of the geometry of the atmosphere?
Oh, I know, they consult experts in those fields. Too bad those experts don’t know anything about meteorology.
I don’t know much about whales but have helped dissect a small one. Haven’t seen this stat “proof” but I do know a little more about statistics and 100% does sound numerically suspect. Also I’ve been asked by a few including a couple from there about the situation.“Gerasoulis finds that in the region where the surveying was most active, the death rate jumped to an astonishing five times greater.” And–“The “unusual mortality” data is astounding. Basically the humpback death rate roughly tripled starting in 2016 and continued high thereafter. You can see it here:”
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast
Before the days of statistical worship, these, if true, would be enough to instigate caution and a serious unbiased study which is what I basically told them. The little I recall about the Navy study is that some was out of Panama City, Florida and did not have the magnitude of this to evaluate.
Use Your Brain. Where did he say that off shore wind turbines and their construction kills 100% of the whales?
When I read the article I came away with the opinion that the professor emeritus has 100% confidence that the Construction and use of off shore Wind Turbines is Causing the death of Whales.
Can you confirm to me that the construction and use of off shore Wind turbines is not responsible for the death of a single whale? How many whale do you want to die before you concede the fact that the Construction and use of off shore Wind Turbines is Causing the death of Whales.
Analogy: If the stop light is burned out does it decrease or increase the number of accidents until the light is repaired? (Assuming it takes a few weeks to repair) A HS Student could figure this out.
From usurbrain “Can you confirm to me that the construction and use of off shore Wind turbines is not responsible for the death of a single whale? How many whale do you want to die”
No, nor did I suggest I could, nor can I prove there are no fairies at the bottom of your garden. Proving a negative, is more or less impossible. How many whales do I want to die-none. But there is, as yet, no evidence they are dying as a result of offshore wind turbines. Plenty of arm waving, lots of assertion, no evidence.