The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the NOAA Fisheries agency have both put out what amount to “arguments from ignorance” claiming that offshore wind development has nothing to do with the recent whale deaths.
“We know nothing about it so it must not be happening” is a ridiculous defense to the charge of offshore wind development causing the death of a lot of whales. But this is exactly what the Feds are now saying.
NOAA Fisheries is a scientific agency and their version is more scientific, which is important because this is really a scientific issue.
Let us look at their arguments. They have a fairly long FAQ page on wind and whales here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life...
Here is their core argument: “At this point, there is no evidence to support speculation, noise resulting from wind development-related site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales.
There are no specific links between recent large whale mortalities and currently ongoing sonic boom surveys for offshore wind development.”
These two sentences present different aspects of the argument. Let’s take the second sentence first.
The concept of “specific links” is pretty vague. It has a narrow meaning that BOEM has asserted, namely sonic boom blasting killing whales on the spot.
There is indeed no evidence that this has ever happened.
This is not like land-based wind, where you can count the dead eagles on the ground around the tower.
Instead, likely causes of death are indirect.
Death may occur relatively far away in space and time.
These causes range from injury, such as bleeding and deafness, to fleeing or avoidance or other behavioral changes.
But ask this question about possible injury: “How many whales have been examined for injury after being sonic boom blasted?”
The answer is none, because there is no way to examine wild whales for bleeding or deafness.
Thus the fact that we know of no instances of injury in no way means there are no such injuries.
Injury might actually be common.
There are however some very specific links between mortality and sonic boom survey blasting in the broader sense.
First of all, the East Coast humpback whale mortality rate roughly tripled beginning in 2016, which is just when offshore wind surveying really geared up. I discuss this in my article here: https://www.cfact.org/2023/01/23/evidence-says-offshore-wind-develo....
The recent humpback deaths look to be part of this long term trend.
The NOAA FAQ suggests that this huge 2016 jump in mortality might be due to a big increase in humpback numbers.
This conjecture is falsified by the fact that the dramatic die-off of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whales (NARW) also started in 2016.
Given no other apparent cause, the ongoing sonic boom blasting surveys are the likely link between offshore wind development and ongoing elevated whale mortality.
Thus NOAA second sentence is false. There is a likely link.
The NOAA first sentence states there is no evidence sonic boom blasting could potentially cause mortality.
It is amusing, this claim is falsified by NOAA’s own activity.
Since 2016, NOAA has issued over 40 authorizations for survey noise to harass large numbers of whales.
One authorization I looked at permitted harassment of over 100 right whales, whose entire population is estimated at just 340
Harassment is defined as potentially inducing a change in behavior and these changes can potentially cause mortality.
Thus NOAA Fisheries has emphatically certified the potential for sonic boom blasting to cause mortality.
I first pointed out a simple case last year in an article titled “How to kill whales with offshore wind”.
See https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/27/how-to-kill-whales-with-offshore-w... (which I sent to a lot of people at NOAH Fisheries).
The referenced article is about infrasound wind turbine noise, which sickens whales and other animals, but site survey sonic blasting noise is just as bad, perhaps much worse.
The wind site described is in a low traffic area, as most likely are, with heavy coastal, noise-making traffic passing further out at sea.
To avoid the horrendous noise, the migrating whales are forced to go around the wind system site, which puts them right into heavy sea-going traffic.
The potential for increased deaths is obvious, making NOAA sentence one deeply false.
In fact there seems to be a huge gap in the science being done at NOAA Fisheries.
They do a lot on underwater acoustics, that is noise, in order to do these Harassment Authorizations.
As I understand it, Fisheries first estimates the size and location of the area where the noise level will be above the safe level.
Then, Fisheries uses a density model to estimate the number of critters that will be adversely affected and the authorization number is derived from that.
This is in effect a forecast of the potential, forced behavior changes.
Fisheries also does a lot of what is called “population dynamics”.
This means looking at what it takes to sustain or grow a given critter population, be it whales, other marine mammals, various monitored fish species, or even sea turtles.
For example, recently, Fisheries lowered the allowed human kill rate for NARW from 0.9 kills per year to 0.7, reflecting the steadily declining population.
This means, humans can safely cause the deaths of no more than 7 whales every 10 years.
Killing 2 whales every 3 years also meets this standard as the average is 0.67 whales a year.
NOAA estimates, humans are killing well over 2 NARW per year.
What NOAA Fisheries does not seem to be doing is looking at the potential adverse impact of the authorized wind site harassments on the monitored populations, especially whales.
Instead Fisheries now seem to be claiming that there are no such potential impacts, which is clearly false.
It is precisely this kind of adverse population impact that needs to be assessed before any more Harassment Authorizations are issued by NOAH Fisheries.
What harassment-driven behavior changes are to be expected?
How might they lead to deaths, such as by injury, infection, ship collision or fishing gear entanglements, etc?
In some cases, especially the NARW’s shrinking population, adverse impacts on fertility might also be important.
The basic scientific question is very simple: “What is the potential death rate from proposed authorized harassment?”
Authorizing harassment of whales and other protected animals should be suspended until this question is answered.
By the way, all of this, including rolling blackouts at ZUB-ZERO temperatures, and a lack of gas and oil for space heating, applies to New England, if:
1) New York State keeps obstructing new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England; THIS SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORBIDDEN AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE OF INTER-STATE COMMERCE, and
2) The New England oil, gas and coal storage capacities near power plants are not increased by at least 100% to ensure RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN WINTER, WHICH WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, IF UNCERTAIN, MOTHER-NATURE, WEATHER-DEPENDENT WIND AND SOLAR WERE FURTHER EXPANDED, AS THE US AIMS TO BLINDLY COPY THAT DISASTROUS EUROPEAN SCENARIO
These articles and image are provided for reference.
ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1
DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT
LIFE WITHOUT OIL
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.
Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries
If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018
ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life
These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.
Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.
New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’
Weather- Just how does it happen?
A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.
Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.
Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated.
Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.
See Appendix 2 and 3
The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.
There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.
1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade
2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST
The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.
See Appendix 2 and URL
Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.
The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2)
Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements.
NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.
The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.
NOTE: The bottom dotted, squiggly graph is the Russian Model (IMM-C-M4), which is close to the balloon and satellite data.
A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.
SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm.
Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).
Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.
These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .
Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .
Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.
The W&H model embodies the scientific method.
In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.
It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . .
See Appendix 3
The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.
Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.
The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.
A timely and important new paper has just been uploaded to the CO2 Coalition website on nitrogen.
The first half of the paper on the greenhouse warming effect of N2O is quite technical
It is summarized in the first link.
Link to the full paper is at the bottom. Please distribute widely.
Authors: Will Happer, C. A. de Lange, William Wijngaarden and J.D. Ferguson
Nitrous Oxide and Climate – Why restricting N2O emissions is unnece...
Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the pantheon of “human-generated demon” gases.
GW scare-mongers view increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented GW, which will lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.
Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing, or eliminating, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide.
Reductions of N2O emissions of 40 to 45 percent are being proposed in Canada , and by up to 50 percent in the Netherlands .
Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.
The CO2 Coalition has published this paper, which evaluates the GW effect of the N20 and its role in the nitrogen cycle.
Policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated N20 reductions of this beneficial molecule.
This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.
Key takeaways from the paper:
- At current rates, a doubling of N2O would occur in more than 400 years.
- Atmospheric warming by N2O is estimated to be 0.064 C per century.
- Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to feed a growing population.
Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide
It is dangerous to be correct in matters, where established men are wrong, by Voltaire
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine