7 thoughts on “Claim: Emissions from shipping making ocean more acidic”
Environmental cruise ships, anti-whaling attack vessils, and coal embargo ships are exempt of course. They don’t add anything to the acidification, 😉
I think that Benofhouston is on to something. Very few shipping lanes pass through the middle of coral reefs. A very large portion of sea lane emissions occur at distances of hundreds to thousands of miles from coral reefs.
It turned out that local emissions of nitrogen dioxide from mobile sources caused what little acidification of New England lakes that did occur and that Ohio River Valley combustion of sulfur dioxide was not to blame. The mobility of acids in sea water is much less than its mobility in the atmosphere.
I remember that I was in high-school chemistry about the time that shampoos were big on “lowering the pH of your hair!” How low did they want to go?
The less soot, sulfate and other real pollution, the better — although not the nonsense of “…if it saves one clam…”
“In the end, it has points in principle, but casual analysis should dismis the theory.”
True, but this is more than academic. The BS is being acted on:
‘These studies led the International Maritime Organization to designate Emissions Control Areas around much of North America, following similar control areas in Northern Europe.
“This policy-driven transition to cleaner ship fuels and lower emissions is the most dramatic global reduction in acidifying deposition to the sea since at least the 1950s,” Corbett said.’
Ocean acidification is a lie. People are being harmed by the lie.
Less alkaline is what it really is. What is never mentioned is the actual numbers and the fact that the waters of the world are not a constant PH. Nor is the water the same PH every where. This is the same fake argument for PH in the ocean that global warming is for temperatures around the world.
Large ships burn bunker fuel, high-sulfur nasty stuff that’s pretty bad. If they have poor combusion you could easily have a lot of sulfur-laden particulate and H2S emissions. Perhaps even H2SO4. I can see it being enough to have a local effect. However, it wouldn’t be measurable on a large scale, and it can’t be large enough to be deadly because we don’t see thousands of fish-kills in the wakes of steamers. The sulfur doesn’t build up because it is consumed by plankton and algae.
In the end, it has points in principle, but casual analysis should dismis the theory.
“more acidic”
More acidic than what?
Several universities are listed as participating in this gross ignorance. Proudly participating.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Environmental cruise ships, anti-whaling attack vessils, and coal embargo ships are exempt of course. They don’t add anything to the acidification, 😉
I think that Benofhouston is on to something. Very few shipping lanes pass through the middle of coral reefs. A very large portion of sea lane emissions occur at distances of hundreds to thousands of miles from coral reefs.
It turned out that local emissions of nitrogen dioxide from mobile sources caused what little acidification of New England lakes that did occur and that Ohio River Valley combustion of sulfur dioxide was not to blame. The mobility of acids in sea water is much less than its mobility in the atmosphere.
I remember that I was in high-school chemistry about the time that shampoos were big on “lowering the pH of your hair!” How low did they want to go?
The less soot, sulfate and other real pollution, the better — although not the nonsense of “…if it saves one clam…”
“In the end, it has points in principle, but casual analysis should dismis the theory.”
True, but this is more than academic. The BS is being acted on:
‘These studies led the International Maritime Organization to designate Emissions Control Areas around much of North America, following similar control areas in Northern Europe.
“This policy-driven transition to cleaner ship fuels and lower emissions is the most dramatic global reduction in acidifying deposition to the sea since at least the 1950s,” Corbett said.’
Ocean acidification is a lie. People are being harmed by the lie.
Less alkaline is what it really is. What is never mentioned is the actual numbers and the fact that the waters of the world are not a constant PH. Nor is the water the same PH every where. This is the same fake argument for PH in the ocean that global warming is for temperatures around the world.
Large ships burn bunker fuel, high-sulfur nasty stuff that’s pretty bad. If they have poor combusion you could easily have a lot of sulfur-laden particulate and H2S emissions. Perhaps even H2SO4. I can see it being enough to have a local effect. However, it wouldn’t be measurable on a large scale, and it can’t be large enough to be deadly because we don’t see thousands of fish-kills in the wakes of steamers. The sulfur doesn’t build up because it is consumed by plankton and algae.
In the end, it has points in principle, but casual analysis should dismis the theory.
“more acidic”
More acidic than what?
Several universities are listed as participating in this gross ignorance. Proudly participating.