Someone at GEUS mislead COP21/22?

DARKair, DARKlung, DARKrain, DARKsnow = DEADfish DEADhumans

THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG

Kirchacherstrasse 9 CH-8608 Bubikon Zurich Switzerland

e-mail [email protected] Web www.THiiiNK.com

Global Drought Cancer & Sea level rise Catastrophe due to shipping SOOT

The 1 trillion $ per year Global health care costs, due to Sulphur and PM emissions related Cancers and deaths are caused by sea transport. This is also the cause of the rapid melting of ice, which many people attribute to Co2. What most people don’t see is that the SOOT or otherwise called particle emissions caused the drought that lead to the War in Syria. Particle emissions also caused the deaths of millions in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan as well as the droughts in the USA and Mediterranean. 30 years ago, Germany & the USA acknowledged the dangers of ACID rain and required the instillation of SCRUBBERS or GAS CLEANING on all HEAVY FUEL OIL LAND BASED POWER PLANTS. The IMO (International Maritime Organisation) NOT ONLY REFUSED TO INSTALL THE AVAILABLE EXHAUST SYSTEMS” BUT WORSE, MISS REPORTED over 320 million tons of IFO380, (Heavy fuel oil) the most dangerous fuel on the Planet.

This waste product of the fossil fuel industry is being incinerated on the worlds OCEANS. The sulphur emitted from the burning of this sludge is causing a level of acidification that is poisoning and destroy world Fish Stocks. Particle emissions are also causing rapid ice melt. These black particles collect on the ice causing the surface to turn black. The suns rays are melting this black ice 80 years sooner than IPCCs (International Panel for Climate Change) predictions.

Particle emissions stop the circulation of water from the Oceans to the land. Ocean rain clouds become so full of particle emissions that the Vital Rain is released prematurely over the Ocean before reaching land. When the Clouds do reach land all the water is dumped at once, causing flash floods. These events, like the floods and droughts in the Mediterranean become worse and worse each year = Syrian Drought WAR

March 1, 2016 NASAFindsDroughtinEasternMediterraneanWorstofPast900Years NASA study finds that the recent drought that began in 1998 in the eastern Mediterranean Levant region, which comprises Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey, is likely the worst drought of the past nine centuries. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-finds-drought-in-eastern-mediterranean-worst-of-past-900-years





Mediterranean agriculture will be destroyed by 2020 due to DROUGHT ACID RAIN is Caused by SHIPPING particle emissions = No Rain = No Mandatory SCRUBBERS for 30 years

It is HIGHLY CRITICAL to understand the phenomenon of GLOBAL DIMMING. Global dimming is increased reflectance of the suns rays due to particle emissions. The net impact is a decrease in sunlight and the suns warming effect on the earth. Most people, including many Climate Scientists, do not understand this. Neither particle emissions nor global dimming have been considered in the bulk of climate research as the focus is on Co2 = SHIPPING is burning more then 400 million tons of IFO380/180/MDO

The BBC, often accused of not “talking Climate Change”, has as always EXPLAINED EXACTLY what was really going on. Because the Buzz word is Co2, and most of the Billions spent on Climate Change Research is spent on Co2, and not on global dimming or Particle emissions, Climate Science has refused to listen and kept saying Co2 was to blame for all. The BBC´s Global Dimming Documentary, About Geo engineering & Global Warming is about how unintentional increased reflectance due to man made pollution are the main drivers of ABRUBT CLIMATE change.

Please watch this like” it is unpleasant but there you see why Syria happened” as you will see Africa had just gotten better as SOOT and ACID RAIN in Europe and America was dealt with” SHIPPING did not STOP in 1980th they went on and on and now the Mediterranean is next Syria is gone ... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xudm8n_bbc-global-dimming-documentary-about-geoengineering-global-warming_people





Where do I fit in? Well I’m the Unlucky Guy who discovered that the IMO, CLIMATE SCIENCE and NGO´s were missing out 320 million tons of IFO 380 from their reports on shipping emissions every year for 20 years. That translates into 1.6 billion tons of Co2 per year. The worst part here is not 1.6 billion tons of Co2 from Global SHIPPING (all the up to 2007 and 2016 somewhere at 1.6 to 2.2 Billion tons of Co2 or 4% to 7% of Global Co2 emissions TODAY) but the missing and more horrific effects of particle matter from the IFO380 fuel being burned 24/7 on the world Oceans: WARNING to EVERYONE. If you find things like this Climate Science & NGO’s become your worst Enemies, they will spare no means to stop you. Greenpeace & Friends of the EARTH plus Ice Climate Science literally would prefer me DEAD. Greenpeace & Friends of the EARTH on the IMO panel from 2000 to 2007 did every thing they could to STOP my numbers. They had 80 million tons for global shipping I had 400 million. Ice Climate Science did the same from 2014 to 2016 = GEUS Denmark Prof Jason Box mislead COP21” he could have warned COP21 about Rapid ice melt due to SHIPPING SOOT” he had the Data” he blocked it all instead? 2007 Shipping Bermuda triangle: http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars 2004 to 2008 http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler

Why Prof. Jason Box GEUS BLOCKED me from 2014 to 2016 and NOT SAID A WORD at COP21? His Algae’s melting Greenland” His New Book” His everything would have been wrong? What really gets me? I wanted no Credit” I just wanted to warn the world” My Country Denmark was I acute DANGER! As you can all see we really have a problem in Greenland” if you understand SHIPPING SOOT or Particles like I do this type of article is 10 times worse than the written in THE NEW YORKER article or more? http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/greenland-is-melting?mbid=synd_digg





All the way from 2008 and again 2014 to 2016 ” I said we need to study Greenland from a different prospective” forget forest fires” Co2 and Algae” The largest ships of today, the EEEs, give off the same emissions as 376 million cars and not 50,000 million cars, as was the case in 2008 when the largest ship was the Emma Maersk. Particle emissions from shipping need to be monitored 24/7. The bulk of particulate matter is coming from shipping and not forest fires and algae, as is stated by most climate scientists. I told provide Prof Jason Box GEUS in Denmark years of my work” we have many layers of SOOT in the ice being exposed as the melt process continues due to rising temperatures, but he refused to hear. He told me ‘we are busy. This is too much information’. In March 2016 Marco Tedesco of the EARTH INSTITUTE at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, stated that the ongoing melting that had been incorrectly blamed on CO2, was actually caused by older soot embedded in the snow coming to the surface and enhancing the melting. Every word, all my data confirmed from A to Z. 8 years too late but nice to know that standing up to something was worth it. LYING for profit & Fame was never my thing. I always wanted to save the Climate. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/another-alarmist-pillar-collapses-greenland-melting-due-to-old-soot-feedback-loops-and-albedo-change-not-agw/

Global Drought Cancer & Sea level raise Catastrophe due to shipping SOOT. So now you know some of my story. 16 years I worked on this 24/7 with pretty much the whole world against me; Climate Science & NGO’s: except for a few of my friends and my investors, who spent fortunes on solutions for our Ocean’s. I hope you will all take the time to read about Global shipping. It is one of the biggest and most dangerous drivers of Climate Change. Our Planet is 70% Ocean. I UNDERSTAND fully why it so hard to understand when your looking at a few cars, 1 billion on 30% of the planet, which is land. You will hopefully see the equivalent of 1.3 trillion cars due to Shipping SOOT will cause TOTAL Havoc on our 70% Ocean Planet and are driving abrupt Climate Change causing; ACCELERATED ICE MELT, FAST SEA LEVEL RISE,





MEGA DROUGHT’S, RAPID OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, GLOBAL CANCER to UNIMAGINABLE LEVELS.

Now we have to relate this to the sulphur emissions caused by the sea transport from China to Europe (approximately 12.000 nautical miles) e.g. of a cell phone, a pair of shoes or an electrical car. A TEU, which is a standard container is capable of carrying approximately 40.000 cell phones, 2500 pairs of shoes or 2 electrical cars. The Vessel, Emma Maersk can carry 14.770 TEU. The duration of the voyage varies between 20 to 25 days at sea depending on speed. When considering only the volume of cargo, Emma Maersk could transport nearly 600m cell phones, when this is then compared with sulphur emissions of a car, the sea transport of one cellphone causes approximately 280m/600m=0.47x 23 (days at sea) = sulphur emissions of approximately 11 days of normal car usage. For the pair of shoes this is worse because of the lower capacity of the container by factor 16 = 176 days of car usage. For the transport of the electric cars it is a factor of 20.000 compared to the cell phones leading to the fact, that the transport of one electrical car from China to Europe would cause the same amount of sulphur emissions as 220.000 days of normal (gasoline driven) car usage. Therefore, there is in fact no such thing as Green or Clean export products anymore as all the Green and Clean is lost at Sea. A 10,000 times or more over as a 20 foot Container TEU in 2016 is equal 22,000 petrol driving Cars? These numbers are not taking into account the typical lower payload percentage and the misbalance of cargo on the way back to Asia, so this is a very conservative approach.





Because transportation of cars in containers is not usual, we can also look at sulphur emissions of a typical car carrier vessel, which is interesting, because the cars themselves might offer very good environmental characteristics, but overall, including their sea transport, we get another picture, which you are not informed about when purchasing a car: As example we take “Andromeda Leader” a typical car carrier vessel. It typically loads 5500 cars and has a consumption of 45 tons of heavy fuel oil per day and a typical voyage between Japan and Florida takes 22 days. This results in approximately 1000 tons HFO for the complete voyage or 1000/5500= approximately 182 kg HFO per transported car. Factorized with the 3500 times higher sulphur content of HFO we get 637 tons of car fuel. These 637 tons of car fuel are containing the same amount of sulphur like up to 182 kg HFO! Even though the transport of cars in highly specialized car carriers is optimized to the limit, this still means the transport in this example causes as much sulphur emissions as approximately 160,000 days or 436 years of normal car usage (at 4kg fuel per day). Another perspective in concern of the actually high amount of wildfires in the U.S.:If all the forests in California burned down in one year, meaning an estimated 850 million tons of wood (http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/04/15/california-carbon/ ) containing 0.1% of sulphur (http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,103200&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL )





this would be equivalent to “only” 24 million tons of HFO due to the higher suphur content by factor 35. The large Container Vessel with it`s consumption of 320 tons per day roughly spends 250-300 days per year operating at sea, leading to an annual consumption of 80,000 tons of HFO. So 300 ULCSs (Ultra Large Container Ships) during one year, would emit the same amount of sulphur as burning down California`s forests. This means that sea transport is burning down the entire Californian Forrest 25 times per year. DARK snow melting the ice quicker then ever, and at least 254 of these vessels already exist.

(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Large_Container_Ship ) = why did the ice melt so fast? Co2, yes, but the effect of the ice being black from SHIPPING soot made it melt many times faster, and it is the reason why the IPCC predictions on an ice free arctic were off by over 80 years. The conclusion: Transport cannot be green this way, even though it has been strongly optimized, more production MUST take place where the products are needed. If this is not enough, all you need to do is take the Space Perspective on the following page. There it should be clear that car (VW 0.2 compared to shipping 50,000 ppm) manufacturing, as such, is clean “in fact Super Clean” no matter how much one “Screws Up” in the day to day operation’s”…? Net result the next 20 years http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html Due to a comprehensive Climate-Denial campaign, the existing shipping fleet is now Killing 500,000 people per year with no end in site, as many of these 100,000 vessels will have a life time of over 15 years, misleading the UNITED NATIONS, leading to the outright death of approx. 7.5 million people with a Global healthcare bill of up to 25 trillion dollars. As a bonus on top of that, as 0 is done about the Nr1 problem the existing fleet. https://gcaptain.com/2016/01/08/tier-iii-nox-regulations-enter-into-force-for-north-american-ecas/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=68cffb270c-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-68cffb270c-139811721 Never has a United Nations process failed so many people, caused so much harm towards the above stated “facts”. There are no excuses as trillions were spent on new vessels, even though there where endless RETROFIT possibilities and fuel savings of 90 billion per year by enforcing a 50% fuel burn reduction and 150,000 possible jobs, but “NO” the “OUT RIGHT” death of 7.5 million people and destruction of the world oceans was approved granted instead. http://www.shippingtech.it/PDF/convegni%202010/2tecnologie1/Baan.pdf What do 24,000 sea miles mean to the Global Economy = Health care cost = Why so much CANCER 1 pair of shoes = 176 days of gasoline driving” 1 TESLA = 222 000 days of gasoline driving 1 EEE corresponds to 2 million wood burning stoves” 1 EEE equals 38 rows of cars round the world

Since 1980 Swedish & Danish taxpayers alone have paid €24 billion inextra EXTRA Health cost in Cancer & Death due to SHIPPING..?

6 Øresund Bridges 24 Billion





The horrific fact is that due to shipping there are in reality no Green Export products on EARTH. All the GREEN is lost at SEA many times over. For the past 30 years Green Export is SOOT Export, destroying everything in its path. One thing is our Ice, Oceans & Climate but the cost of Cancer due to shipping is bankrupting Global Health Care, not to mention Drought, the driver of No Water No Food = WAR .?

Relatedwork2000-2008:http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 Bermuda triangle missing 320 million ton fuel All my figures are always conservative the 280 million was 376 million cars per EEE when checked by 3 party regulators in Germany just post COP 21” SHIPPING Co2 is at 1.2 to 1.6 billion tons pending speed per segment Key the Fleet increase from 2006 to 2016 The net result of everyone misleading the UNITED NATIONS for years” is the utter and total destruction of the worlds Oceans due to acidification from the shipping fuel itself “IFO380/180/MDO”. How bad is the situation for the world Oceans? On land 8 cars per square kilometer are causing total havoc to health care and environment. On the Ocean, shipping is equal to 2500 cars per square kilometer of Ocean or shipping equals 1.3 trillion cars or 1300 times the Global fleet of cars. A walk in a coastal city like London is now outright dangerous. Shipping emission of SOx, NOx & PM drifting in from the Sea 24/7. The most dangerous places in the world to take a walk, or work, or have a house is by the Sea. You or Children are the worst effected and will most probably get some form of CANCER. In Scandinavia alone 10,000 die every year even with so called “Clean Fuel” which in reality is not clean. Imagine the effect of the 1.3 trillion or 2500 cars per square kilometer of Ocean on Marine life. A 24/7 MASS Extinction driven by the most poisons’ Fuels in the world IFO380/180/MDO.OuroceansaredyingfromthesameACIDRAINthatcausedhavocinEurope&AmericabeforeGasScrubberswereinstalledonall landbasedpowerplants.





Rapid Ocean Acidification = SHIPPING ACID RAIN = NO SCRUBBERS 30 years just like on land? http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/gattuso-et-al-2015-science-acidification-57364105

WAR Syrian DROUGHT millions dead Ethiopia Eritrea Sudan DRAUGHT in the USA Mediterranean = SHIPPING particles http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xudm8n_bbc-global-dimming-documentary-about-geoengineering-global-warming_people GLOBAL DIMMING = SHIPPING IFO380/180/MDO = DROUGHT = WAR in SYRIA = IPCC ICE MELT PREDICTIONS OFF BY 80 YEARS = METRES OF SEA LEVEL RISE YEARS AHEAD OF TIME. WORSE, MILLIONS WILL DIE IN AFRICA INDIA, NOT DUE TO Co2 BUT CHANGING WEATHER PATTERNS DUE TO PARTICLES AROUND EACH CONTINENT STOPPING CIRCULATION OF RAIN WATER?

LOOK AT AMERICA THE MED, BLACK SPOTS ARE STOPPING CIRCULATION OF RAIN WATER. PARTICLES ARE COMING FROM ONE PLACE. 90% OF GLOBAL TRANSPORT, GLOBAL SHIPPING FOR 30 YEARS, NO GAS CLEAING. USING IFO380/180/MDOBUNKERFUEL.DROUGHTSTARTSONOUROCEAN.THEPARTICLESARESTOPPINGNORMALRAINFALLONLAND=MEGADROUGHT’S=SHIPPINGSOOTISCLOUDSEEDING CLEAN FUEL failure in Scandinavia & Baltic is killing over 10,000 people PLUS 100,000 new cases of Cancer each year. That translates into 1 TRILLION $ in Global Health care costs. Rapidly Melting ice will quicken Global sea level rise causing trillion’s of DOLLARS in damages to coastal city’s long before the





current time estimates. This is because NO ONE has included the TRUE effects of shipping emissions in their figures. In 2007, 90% of the fleet was left out of the calculation meaning 320 million tons of BUNKER- FUEL had NOT been included in the climate calculations and Health studies from 1980 till 2016:

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5

The 2008 data manipulation means that all effects of Cancer were off by a factor of 5 as Corbett in his shipping death study was using the misleading IMO 80 million tons of BUNKER FUEL instead of the actual 400 million tons for global shipping:

Shipping pollution kills 60,000 every year: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12892-shipping-pollution-kills-60000-every-year/ So 5 times 60,000 was really 300,000 people per year dying from shipping with over 3 million new cases of Cancer. To this day, this mistake has not been corrected to AVOID any real ACTION toward the cleanup of shipping. As you will note, there is a very good reason why London parks are so deadly. Shipping emissions from the English channel are not included in anything, even though we are talking 1 EEE MAERSK ship being 376 million cars. Just 3 EEE ship’s equal all world cars or to put it another way shipping in total equals 1.3 trillion cars. That means that 1300 times the world car fleet is on the world oceans or 2500 cars per square kilometer of Ocean. To give you a comparison on land we have about 8 cars per square kilometer

.. http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/corbett-mortality-ship-death

So the TRUE figures for SOOT ice melting impacts are off by the same amount or a factor of 5. However, SOOT from shipping has not been being factored in to Ice Science. Instead NGO’s are talking about Wildfires. I hope we can agree that missing the equivalent of the ENTIRE CALIFORNIAN Forrest being burned 25 times per year in shipping emission shows just how bad things are and why the ice is disappearing much quicker than anyone ever imagined. It “made better copy” and was easier NOT DEALING with shipping and saying that the particle matter was coming from Fires in California. Much more colorful on TV BUT REALLY BAD SCIENCE! 2016 is not any different. 99% of Climate Ice science and NGOs did not check the facts before COP21. Most just called old data sources, which is the SOLE REASON NOTHING happened at COP21 where policy makers where again mislead from A to Z. You think I’m kidding. Prof Jason Box GEUS Denmark the famous Professor in so called ice science pulled me from a trip to Greenland 24 hours before departure “sorry we cannot take you”. I wanted him to check the old layers of SHIPPING SOOT being exposed as the ice melted. But NO way would he check the facts as that meant his work would need to be updated” PLUS Before the Flood Movie Leo DiCaprio” watching him lie to Leo not warning COP21 NOT A WORD ABOUT THE TRUE DISASTER what can I possibly say” how can we act when a professor at that level holds back such critical data.? Our luck is Marco Tedesco. He did not blame Trees, Algae or Co2 but SOOT from Atlantic





shipping routes from Europe to America, SHIPPING NEXT TO THE ICE FOR 30 YEARS. The accelerated Global Sea level rise Catastrophe, due to shipping SOOT. How badly has this effected the actual melting of ice? You can see the consequences in the article below. Years of Old and New SOOT layers triggering accelerated Global Sea level rise due to FASTER ice melting speeds = SHIPPING FLEET WIDE GAS CLEANING = SCRUBBERS to AVOID worsening the Ice Melt FLODING DISASTER.. .

An aerial image of Greenland shows rivers of meltwater and areas of dark ice. Greenland’s surface is absorbing more solar

radiation as melting increases grain size and brings old impurities to the surface. CREDIT Marco Tedesco/Lamont-Doherty Earth

Observatory

Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW

Anthony Watts / March 3, 2016 From the EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and the “we told you so time and again at WUWT” department comes this study which not only explains the “insta-melt” in the Summer of 2012, but the ongoing melting that has been incorrectly blamed on CO2, when instead it’s





all about older soot embedded in snow coming around again to enhance melting combined with weather pattern changes.. Greenland’s ice is getting darker, increasing risk of melting Feedback loops from melting itself are driving changes in reflectivity Greenland’s snowy surface has been getting darker over the past two decades, absorbing more heat from the sun and increasing snow melt, a new study of satellite data shows. That trend is likely to continue, with the surface’s reflectivity, or albedo, decreasing by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century, the study says.

While soot blowing in from wildfires contributes to the problem, it hasn’t been driving the change, the study finds. The real culprits are two feedback loops created by the melting itself. One of those processes isn’t visible to the human eye, but it is having a profound effect.

The results, published in the European Geosciences Union journal The Cryosphere, have global implications. Fresh meltwater pouring into the ocean from Greenland raises sea level and could affect ocean ecology and circulation.

“You don’t necessarily have to have a ‘dirtier’ snowpack to make it dark,” said lead author Marco Tedesco, a research professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and adjunct scientist at NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “A snowpack that might look ‘clean’ to our eyes can be more effective in absorbing solar radiation than a dirty one. Overall, what matters, it is the total amount of solar energy that the surface absorbs. This is the real driver of melting.”

The feedback loops work like this: During a warm summer with clear skies and lots of solar radiation pouring in, the surface starts to melt. As the top layers of fresh snow disappear, old impurities, like dust from erosion or soot that blew in years before, begin to appear, darkening the surface. A warm summer can remove enough snow to allow several years of impurities to concentrate at the surface as surrounding snow layers disappear. At the same time, as the snow melts and refreezes, the grains of snow get larger. This is because the meltwater acts like glue, sticking grains together when the surface refreezes. The larger grains create a less reflective surface that allows more solar radiation to be absorbed. The impact of grain size on albedo – the ratio between reflected and incoming solar radiation – is strong in the infrared range, where humans can’t see, but satellite instruments can detect the change.

“It’s a complex system of interaction between the atmosphere and the ice sheet surface. Rising temperatures are promoting more melting, and that melting is reducing albedo, which in turn is increasing melting,” Tedesco said. “How this accumulates over decades is going to be important, because it can accelerate the amount of water Greenland loses. Even if we don’t have a lot of melting because of atmospheric conditions one year, the surface is more sensitive to any kind of input the sun can give it, because of the previous cycle.”

The study used satellite data to compare summertime changes in Greenland’s albedo from 1981 to 2012. The first decade showed little change, but starting around 1996, the data show that due to darkening, the ice began absorbing about 2 percent more solar radiation per decade. At the same time, summer near-surface temperatures in Greenland increased at a rate of about 0.74?C per decade, allowing more snow to melt and fuel the feedback loops.





A likely cause for the large shift around 1996 was a change in atmospheric circulation, Tedesco said. The North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale natural weather cycle, went into a phase in which summer atmospheric conditions favored more incoming solar radiation and warmer, moist air from the south. Later records show those conditions shifted in 2013-2014 to favor less melting, but the damage was already done – the ice sheet had become more sensitive. In 2015, melting spiked again to reach more than half of the Greenland ice sheet.

While new snowfall can make the ice sheet brighter again, the dark material built up during the melt years is waiting just below the surface, preconditioning the surface to future melting, Tedesco said.

The scientists also ran a computer model to simulate the future of Greenland’s surface temperature, grain size, exposed ice area and albedo. Over the current century, the model projects that the average albedo for the entire ice sheet will fall by as much as 8 percent, and by as much 10 percent on the western edge, where the ice is darkest today. Those are conservative estimates – the change could be twice that, Tedesco said.

The scientists looked into the hypothesis that soot from forest fires in China, Siberia and North America could be driving the increased darkening of the ice sheet. Using the Global Fire Emissions Database, they analyzed trends in black-carbon emissions from wildfires in those regions and Europe. While the amount of black carbon released by fires varied year to year, the scientists found no statistically significant increase during 1997-2012 to match the darkening of Greenland.

The study also raises questions about whether Greenland’s high plateau is darkening as previous reports have suggested. The scientists found no long-term trend of darkening at the top, and they suspect that the Terra MODIS satellite sensor that has detected darkening in the past may actually be degrading, as previous studies have suggested. At lower elevations, the signal is much stronger.

“It is a very good paper which provides valuable new insights about the physical processes controlling the change in reflectivity of the Greenland ice sheet and specifically its darkening over time,” said Eric Rignot, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who studies ice sheets but was not involved with the new study. “I also find it particularly interesting that the darkening indicated earlier by satellite sensors is now confirmed to be less, which is good news for the ice sheet. Yet the darkening of Greenland around its periphery remains a source of concern because it contributes to making the ice sheet melt away faster.”The feedback loops could be stopped with lots of snowfall and less melting, but that doesn’t seem likely given the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Tedesco said. And while warming is expected to increase precipitation, that precipitation includes increasing rainfall, which speeds up melting. Melting is also moving to higher elevations as global temperatures warm.“As warming continues, the feedback from declining albedo will add up,” Tedesco said. “It’s a train running downhill, and the hill is getting steeper.”

The paper, “The darkening of the Greenland ice sheet: trends, drivers, and projections (1981-2100),” http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/477/2016/tc-10-477-2016-discussion.html





Another perspective in regard to the high amount of wildfires in the U.S.: If all the forests in California would burn down within one year, meaning an estimated 850 million tons of wood (http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/04/15/california-carbon/ ) containing 0.1% of sulphur (http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,103200&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL ) this would be equivalent to “only” 24 million tons of HFO due to the higher sulphur content by factor 35. The large Container Vessel with it`s consumption of 320 tons per day roughly spends 250-300 days per year operating at sea, leading to an annual consumption of 80,000 tons of HFO. So 300 ULCSs -during one year would emit the same amount of sulphur as burning down all California`s forests, this means that sea transport is burning down the entire Californian Forrest 25 times per year. DARKsnow is melting the ice quicker than ever. At least 254 of these vessels already exist (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Large_Container_Ship ) Why did the ice melt so fast? Co2 yes, but the effect of the ice being black from SHIPPING soot has made it melt many times faster. This is the reason why the IPCC predictions on an ice free arctic were off by over 80 years. The ONLY conclusion, if Shipping Transport is not regulated immediately Global Sea levels will rise many years before current predictions. If this is not enough all you need to do is take the “Space Perspective”. Burning down the entire Californian Forrest 25 times per year = DARKsnow melting the ice quicker than ever from clouds of Shipping particle emissions raining down on the ice 24/7. Yes sure, there is algae growth on the ice but that is not 24/7, year in year out, for the past 30 years. Global SHIPPING is causing a catastrophe of epic proportions. HOW COULD ANYONE MISS THAT FACT? Right, look at the SAT photos. Yes, wildfires are BAD but consider the FACT that 25 times the entire Californian FORREST in SOOT Particle’s is drifting towards the ICE, causing BLACK RAIN, making DARK SNOW, making BLACK ICE. The SUN does the rest, MELTING the ICE. Well it’s now quite understandable why the IPCC was wrong by 80 years on an ICE FREE arctic in 2008? Yes it was fossil fuel. That’s 100% Correct? BUT BAD SCIENCE means they had NO WARNING, 0 real input or the 911 ALARM would have gone off in 2008 when I found 320 million tons of IFO 380 missing in all SOOT calculations? Now imagine 2015 its COP21 it’s all Melting” Famous Ice Climate Guy's Like Prof Jason Box at GEUS tell you to get Lost say NOTHING at the COP” while they go WASTE a few million$ in Greenland KNOWINGLY HIDING THESE FACTS, for the sole purpose of promoting their own BOOK, and go on TV with MOVIE STARS who they ALSO MISLEAD all for a nice Paycheck. 2007 Shipping Bermuda triangle: http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars 2004 to 2008 http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler





The same goes for actual public health impacts due GLOBAL Shipping. ACTUAL reports on the real effect of Clean Fuel are missing or filtered out by clueless NGOs sitting at the IMO.

Falsterbo measurements January-February 2016 This is the preview of the results of the measurements of the Falsterbo campaign January-February 2016, and some nice pictures from the measurements” this station was a 30 minute train ride from Prof Jason Boxes office at GEUS Denmark” Not a word not a visit not even a phone call to Lund University” Not a word to Leo = Not a Word in BEFORE the FLOOD movie about the one key thing that will cause the FLOOD years before estimated time SOOT/Pm Not a word or warning COP22 by Prof Jason Box from GEUS Denmark Hear no Evil see no Evil.! http://shipemissions.blogspot.co.uk/

In the above link you see just how bad things are. Just a few kilometers from the Centre of Copenhagen today, in a so CALLED CLEAN FUEL ZONE, Danes are dying from Cancer like flies, just as fast as the ice is melting due to one thing alone, Shipping emissions. The fuel on ships needs to come down to 10 parts per million to avoid or stop anything. Or their needs to be a massive reduction of the fuel burn IMMEDIATELY, as all land based reduction efforts’ are a total waste of time as the shipping particles are everywhere 24/7. 1 EEE = 376 million cars. Denmark has a total of 2.4 million cars, so just 1 EEE is 156 times the Danish Car fleet on the open ocean or 77 times the total Danish car fleet in the so called Clean Fuel ZONE ECA.





DATA showing just how bad CLEAN FUEL is” or DATA that is not included MEPC

Significant increase of aerosol number concentrations in air masses crossing a densely trafficked sea area

Summary In this study, we evaluated 10 months data (September 2009 to June 2010) of atmospheric aerosol particle number size distribution at three atmospheric observation stations along the Baltic Sea coast: Vavihill (upwind, Sweden), Utö (upwind, Finland), and Preila (downwind, Lithuania). Differences in aerosol particle number size distributions between the upwind and downwind stations during situations of connected atmospheric flow, when the air passed each station, were used to assess the contribution of ship emissions to the aerosol number concentration (diameter interval 50—400 nm) in the Lithuanian background coastal environment.

A clear increase in particle number concentration could be noticed, by a factor of 1.9 from Utö to Preila (the average total number concentration at Utö was 791 cm 3), and by a factor of 1.6 from Vavihill to Preila (the average total number concentration at Vavihill was 998 cm 3). The simulta- neous measurements of absorption Ångström exponents close to unity at Preila supported our conclusion that ship emissions in the Baltic Sea contributed to the increase in particle number concentration at Preila.

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/kecorius-oceanologia-2016-ships-to-to-n

1. Introduction

Aerosol particle emissions from global shipping might con-tribute to 60,000 premature deaths according to a healthimpact assessment (Corbett et al., 2007), and the emissionsare thought to lead to a global temperature decrease due toan increased emission of sulfate particles (Bieltvedt Skeieet al., 2009). The contribution of particles is generally notextensively quantified, for instance how much the shipscontribute to the number of particles and the soot concen-trations. One study shows that when air is transported acrossone major shipping lane in the North Sea, it can increase thedaily averaged particle number concentration by 11—19% at acoastal station 1 h downwind of the shipping lane (Kivekäset al., 2014).

This study has a slightly different focus, and examinesthe influence that ships have on the particle number sizedistribution (PNSD) when the air travels along severalshipping lanes and encounters multiple ship plumes. Forthis purpose, particle concentrations have been comparedbetween two field stations upwind of the shipping lanes,and one station downwind of the shipping lanes severalhundred kilometers from the upwind stations. In the BalticSea, two suitable upwind stations were found, Vavihillin southern Sweden, and Utö, an island in the Finnisharchipelago. Preila in Lithuania was chosen as downwindstation.

In Section 3, it will be quantified how much the particlenumber concentration in the size range 50—400 nm dia-meter increased during transport from the upwind stationsto the downwind station. However, not only ship emissionsaffect the particles in this size range as the air is trans-ported several hundred kilometers over the Baltic Sea.There could be in total 5 or more factors contributing tothe increase: (1) Boundary layer evolution could affectPNSD; (2) Condensational growth of new or pre-existingparticles can contribute to the particle concentration in thefocused size ranges of the PNSD; (3) Land based emissionsbetween the upwind stations and downwind station; (4)Emissions of sea spray aerosol particles; (5) Aerosol particleemissions from ships. In Section 4, the influence of each ofthe first 4 factors will be discarded as potentially significantfor the observed increase in particle number concentration.It will instead be shown that the particle size distributionproperties match well with those of aged ship emissions asindicated by the trajectory pathways. Measurements of theabsorption Ångström exponent will further confirm theinfluence of ship emissions.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Measurement stations

Two background stations upwind of the shipping emissionswere used, Utö in Finland and Vavihill in Sweden. The back-ground station downwind of the shipping lanes was Preila inLithuania (Fig. 1).

The Utö station (598470N, 218230E, 8 m above sea level,Hyvärinen et al., 2008) is located on a small island in theBaltic Sea about 60 km from the Finnish south-west coast andmore than 10 km from the nearest inhabited islands. Turku,the closest town, is about 90 km to the north-east. The islandis almost tree-free. Engler et al. (2007) has shown that at theUtö site, air masses with trajectories prevailing from north-ern sectors (3208—408) are considered to be unaffected byanthropogenic land-based sources.

The Vavihill station (568010N, 138090E, 172 m above sealevel) (Kristensson et al., 2008), is located in southern Sweden,

A clear increase in particle number concentration could be noticed, by a factor of 1.9 from Utö toPreila (the average total number concentration at Utö was 791 cm!3), and by a factor of 1.6 fromVavihill to Preila (the average total number concentration at Vavihill was 998 cm!3). The simulta-neous measurements of absorption Ångström exponents close to unity at Preila supported ourconclusion that ship emissions in the Baltic Sea contributed to the increase in particle numberconcentration at Preila.# 2015 Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by ElsevierSp. z o.o. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Figure 1 Shipping lanes and Skaw line in the Baltic Sea usingAutomatic Identification System (AIS, HELCOM, 2013), as well aslocation of the stations used in this study.

2 S. Kecorius et al.

et al., 2007; Weingartner et al., 2003). However, because ofpossible high uncertainties due to applied corrections we willnot report black carbon mass concentration in this study. Onthe other hand, Sandradewi et al. (2008), Ulevicius et al.(2010) and others have shown that the absorption Ångströmexponent is a useful quantity to represent the origin of carbo-naceous aerosol particles. As the light absorption coefficientdecreases monotonically with wavelength, it can be approxi-mated by a power-law expression, sabs ! l"a, where a is theabsorption Ångström exponent. The absorption Ångströmexponent was obtained by a power-law fit over all sevenaethalometer wavelengths.

2.4. Selection of trajectory cases

The hourly trajectories (Fig. 2) at two different altitudes of100 and 300 m above sea level, representing the Baltic Seaatmospheric boundary layer (Gryning and Batchvarova,2002), were calculated using the Hybrid Single-ParticleLagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT4) model (Draxler

and Rolph, 2003) with the Final Analyses (FNL, 2008—2009)and the Global Data Assimilation System (GDAS) meteorolo-gical databases at the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory's webserver (Rolph, 2003).

To compare the particle properties between the down-wind and upwind stations, only those trajectories passing theentire pathway between the stations over the Baltic Sea wereselected. A few exceptions, however, were made to thiscriterion. In Utö to Preila case, some trajectories passedover the island of Gotland (around 40 km in width of ruralland) between the upwind and downwind sites. It results in 7%of the integral of the trajectory pathway being over land. Forthe Vavihill to Preila trajectory cases there is 70—80 km ofland directly downwind of Vavihill that constitutes around16% of overall trajectory distance. The effects of the landbased emissions are discussed later in Section 4. The differ-ences of PNSD, PM0.4 and a between the stations werecalculated for individual trajectory cases by comparingthe values measured at Preila to the corresponding valuesat the upwind sites at the time when the air mass passed theupwind site according to the trajectory. This was done by

Figure 2 Air mass trajectories passing over the upwind stations and arriving at Preila: smaller dots represent individual hourlytrajectories; larger — the mean of trajectories.

4 S. Kecorius et al.





DATA showing just how bad CLEAN FUEL is” or DATA that is not included MEPC Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations downwind of a major shipping lane

http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/kivekas-acp-2014-ship-contribution-to-particle-number-1

If you look at the impact on People, even after CLEAN FUEL, you see that indeed, Shipping has not been regulated. Fuel burn itself needs to be reduced by at least 50%. Use of SCRUBBERS must be mandatory. NOTHING could more positive than reducing Global Trade costs by 90 billion per year, Reducing Global health care costs by $500 billion per year, Reducing Co2 emissions by 470 million tons per year, by reducing fuel burn. All of this saves thousands of jobs and equals growth. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/29/bankruptcy-in-sight-for-south-korean-shipbuilders.html

N. Kivekäs et al.: Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations 8257

Figure 1. Map of total ship traffic in the western North Sea duringthe entire year 2012, based on the ship AIS data. The green and yel-low lines show the shipping lanes where ships have operated duringthe year. The yellow and black star is the location of the Høvsøremeasurement site. We used the red line for defining air mass tra-jectories arriving over the shipping lane (Sect. 2.1) and the blackline for calculating the number of ships that pass the site (Sect. 2.2).Apart from the star and the red and black lines this figure is providedby the Norwegian Coastal Administration.

but no measurements were performed in their work. We havedeveloped a new method to estimate this contribution, whichis intended for use at other on-shore field sites. The methodhas been developed with the Arctic area in mind since shipemissions can have a large environmental and climate impactin this region. To the authors’ knowledge this is the first studyto address the contribution of one-hour aged ship plumesto the particle number size distribution measured on-shorebased on the passage of several hundred ships. The method issuited to investigate how the particles are transformed about1 hour downwind of the emission sources. The method is ap-plicable to other emission species as well, and the results canbe used for the parameterization of the plume transformationin global climate and air quality models.

Figure 2. A close-up of the Høvsøre field site (yellow cross) withsurrounding wind power turbines (white crosses). The sparsely traf-ficked local road (in north–south direction) is in the middle of thepicture and the coastal road (Torsmindevej) is next to the coastlinenear the left edge of the picture.

2 Measurements and data

2.1 Høvsøre field site

Measurements were carried out at the wind power test fa-cility station Høvsøre, Denmark (56�2603900 N, 8�0900600 E)(Fig. 1), between 9 March and 23 July 2012. The major off-shore shipping lane northwest of the station is not defined byclear administratively set boundaries, as it is not in coastalwaters. We have defined the shipping lane from AIS datashowing where ships operate while passing the site. The dis-tance from the station to the shipping lane is between 25 and60 km depending whether the ships are on the closer or fur-ther edge of the shipping lane.The measurement container hosting the instruments was

positioned 1.8 km from the coastline (Fig. 2). The landscapebetween the coastline and the container is flat with very lowelevation above sea level, except for a 5m high and 10mwide sand bank along the coastline. The container is sur-rounded by agricultural fields with very few trees, and 100mto the NNW and 200m to the SSW of the container, respec-tively, there are two wind turbines which spin occasionallybut not continuously.There is a road located about 1 km southwest of the con-

tainer. Each day only a few cars pass by on this road. The lo-cal and tourism road along the coastline just to the east of thesand banks on the other hand, has a frequency of maximum2500 vehicles per day during the summer. Zhang et al. (2004)showed that with an average traffic intensity of about 300 000vehicles per day, measured particle number concentrations300m downwind of a major highway were not discerniblefrom the upwind concentration. In their study the upwindconcentration of particles between 6 and 220 nm in diameterwas several thousand particles per cm3 in the selected sim-ulations. Based on this comparison, we argue that the coast-line road near Høvsøre should have very minor or no impact

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8255/2014/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8255–8267, 2014

N. Kivekäs et al.: Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations 8257

Figure 1. Map of total ship traffic in the western North Sea duringthe entire year 2012, based on the ship AIS data. The green and yel-low lines show the shipping lanes where ships have operated duringthe year. The yellow and black star is the location of the Høvsøremeasurement site. We used the red line for defining air mass tra-jectories arriving over the shipping lane (Sect. 2.1) and the blackline for calculating the number of ships that pass the site (Sect. 2.2).Apart from the star and the red and black lines this figure is providedby the Norwegian Coastal Administration.

but no measurements were performed in their work. We havedeveloped a new method to estimate this contribution, whichis intended for use at other on-shore field sites. The methodhas been developed with the Arctic area in mind since shipemissions can have a large environmental and climate impactin this region. To the authors’ knowledge this is the first studyto address the contribution of one-hour aged ship plumesto the particle number size distribution measured on-shorebased on the passage of several hundred ships. The method issuited to investigate how the particles are transformed about1 hour downwind of the emission sources. The method is ap-plicable to other emission species as well, and the results canbe used for the parameterization of the plume transformationin global climate and air quality models.

Figure 2. A close-up of the Høvsøre field site (yellow cross) withsurrounding wind power turbines (white crosses). The sparsely traf-ficked local road (in north–south direction) is in the middle of thepicture and the coastal road (Torsmindevej) is next to the coastlinenear the left edge of the picture.

2 Measurements and data

2.1 Høvsøre field site

Measurements were carried out at the wind power test fa-cility station Høvsøre, Denmark (56�2603900 N, 8�0900600 E)(Fig. 1), between 9 March and 23 July 2012. The major off-shore shipping lane northwest of the station is not defined byclear administratively set boundaries, as it is not in coastalwaters. We have defined the shipping lane from AIS datashowing where ships operate while passing the site. The dis-tance from the station to the shipping lane is between 25 and60 km depending whether the ships are on the closer or fur-ther edge of the shipping lane.The measurement container hosting the instruments was

positioned 1.8 km from the coastline (Fig. 2). The landscapebetween the coastline and the container is flat with very lowelevation above sea level, except for a 5m high and 10mwide sand bank along the coastline. The container is sur-rounded by agricultural fields with very few trees, and 100mto the NNW and 200m to the SSW of the container, respec-tively, there are two wind turbines which spin occasionallybut not continuously.There is a road located about 1 km southwest of the con-

tainer. Each day only a few cars pass by on this road. The lo-cal and tourism road along the coastline just to the east of thesand banks on the other hand, has a frequency of maximum2500 vehicles per day during the summer. Zhang et al. (2004)showed that with an average traffic intensity of about 300 000vehicles per day, measured particle number concentrations300m downwind of a major highway were not discerniblefrom the upwind concentration. In their study the upwindconcentration of particles between 6 and 220 nm in diameterwas several thousand particles per cm3 in the selected sim-ulations. Based on this comparison, we argue that the coast-line road near Høvsøre should have very minor or no impact

www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8255/2014/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8255–8267, 2014

8260 N. Kivekäs et al.: Contribution of ship traffic to aerosol particle concentrations

Table 1. Number and fraction of different types of days during our measurement period and during the entire year 2012.

Type of day Number of days Fraction of days (%, Fraction of days(measurement period) measurement period) (%, entire year 2012)

Ship day 39 28.5 18.3Sea day 17 12.4 10.9Inland day 16 11.7 14.2Mixed day 63 46.0 54.4Missing data day 2 1.5 1.9

Total 137 100 99.9

Figure 5. Three uppermost graphs: Color plots of total particle number size distribution (PNSD), background particle number size distribution(PNSDb) and excess particle number size distribution (PNSDe) as functions of time during 12 March 2012. All three graphs have the samecolor axis. Bottom graph: The corresponding number concentrations N , Nb and Ne as function of time.

statistics are thus poor, there was too much noise in Vb hid-ing any signal from the plume. To exclude the noisy data, welimited the particle volume analysis to 12–150 nm in diam-eter. We also analyzed the size range 12–300 nm, but in thissize range the noise was already too high for reliable results.Therefore, we do not report numerical results for that sizerange.We defined excess particle number concentration (Ne) and

excess particle number-size distribution (PNSDe) as the dif-ference between the measured (total) N and PNSD, andthe corresponding background values (Nb, PNSDb) (Fig. 5).This data included the ship plumes as well as the noise inthe measured data. In plotting, we replaced negative parti-cle number concentrations in the Ne with 1 cm�3 and in Vewith 0.001 µm3 cm�3. The actual analysis, however, is done

with data where the negative values were left intact. We de-fined the excess number ratio (RNe) and excess volume ratio(RVe) by dividing the measured total particle number (or vol-ume) concentration by the background particle number (orvolume) concentration.If there were significant and rapid changes in the back-

ground particle number concentration (Nb), those could haveaffected our analysis later. We calculated the absolute and rel-ative change rates of Nb and smoothed them by taking a slid-ing average of six consecutive measurement points (30min).We marked any period when these smoothed values wereabove 56 cm�3 in absolute change or 5% in relative change(or below �56 cm�3 or �5%, respectively) as unanalyzable(Fig. 6). These values correspond to a change of 67% ofwhat is needed to define a plume (discussed later). We also

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8255–8267, 2014 www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8255/2014/

AdvantagesAvoidinganotherSYRIAortomanySYRIASreducingCo2&GLOBALtradecostRETROFITby50%or$90billionperyearisEASY”Icandothatmyself”withonehandinmypocket”Ijustspend16yearsofmylifeinthedevelopmentofcostreductiontechnologies4OceanTransportor90%ofGlobalTrade”=LessCostMoreTradeLessCo2=ReducingGlobalhealthcarecostduetoCANCERby$500billion.!

JornP.WinklerexplainingthefutureofEnergyMarketshere

©2008 DK GROUP NETHERLANDS BV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3

Air lubrication a DK Group patent

•  Super Micro Bubble Generator

(SMBG)

•  Reducing the frictional

resistance

•  Air bubbles inside the boundary

layer of the vessel.

•  Expected efficiency

improvement 5-10%

Introducing DK Group 1).RetrofitAir-LubricationACSpossibleCo2reductionup-to10%


Air lubrication a DK Group patent

Introducing DK Group

* High Inner Pressure

The surface tension of water make micro bubbles smaller and

smaller resulting very high inner

pressure. With mechanical

shock and natural pressure

increase, they break and create extremely high temperature

spots and hydroxyl radicals.

Slow Rise Rate

The micro bubbles float in water as if cigarette smoke float

in air.


DK Group Marine Innovators at a glance

•  Established in 2000, DK Group develops and

markets fuel saving technologies to the global

shipping industry

•  DK Group has developed a unique and

patented technology for the commercial shipping industry, the Air Cavity System Super

Micro Bubble Generator ACS/SMBG

•  Numerous tank tests support bunker

consumption reduction of 5% to 10% from

applying the ACS/SMBG technology on different

vessel types

•  Tests are carried out together with leading

market participants and potential customers

•  Savings translate directly into financial benefits

as well as a cleaner environment from reduced

CO2 emission and other greenhouse gasses

Introducing DK Group

2).RetrofitAdvancedWindPropulsionFletterntechnologyCo2reductionup-to50%THiiiNKSail© Hybrid Evolution why 4 or 2 Rotors if you can do it with 2 or 1..? = Hybrid Wind Propulsion Technologies = THiiiNK offers new patented innovations that improve rotor and vessel performance

With flap = increased force since no turbulent air

Without flap = turbulent air in rotor wake

THiiiNksail© patented system can be fitted quay side on a vessel within a 2 week docking cycle...

Wing-THiiiNksail© patent

Improved Rotor performance by 50% or more

Improved upwind performance from 40° to 25°

Improved equals improved IRR

Foldable- THiiiNksail© patent

Folding the flettner rotors eases maintenance and the number of ports and routes the vessel can maintain

50% more performance Better IRR

more flexibility

WWW.THiiiNK.COM

Folded rotor deck clearance 3 meters”Full De-icing

13121110

987

6

5

4

3

2

1

Lift Coefficient

Progress 1924 to 2016: why 4 or 2 Rotors if you can do it with 2 or 1..?

Hybrid Evolution THiiiNK intelligent industrail innovation = Hybrid Wind Propulsion Technologies = Reduce Sail Area by a Factor x 10+

WWW.THiiiNK.COM

AIRBUSA380/THiiiNKTS820

47m

47m

47mCode: Realistic Fuel burn 400 million ton at $450 per ton Clean Fuel - 50% = 90 billion per year cost reduction including a Co2 reduction of 470 million tons per year





How can the UNITED NATIONS continue to fail to Act? Or even agree with the IMO when the facts are so overwhelming and the solution’s so numerous? Some held back for 92 years. I was held back and SABOTAGED for 16 years? http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/vessel-fuel-burn-reduction

References for base calculations NOBODY in Ice Science or Human health seems know one uses, which is the TRUE PROBLEM bad Climate Science:

• 3rd link the impact of international Shipping doc below is the source for the 17g per kwhr (NOx) • The 40 mg NOx per mile for cars in the U.S. was in the press just after VW blew up. • The 3.5 % Sulphur limit you find in Marpol Annex VI and general in any information about Heavy

fuel oil for shipping • The 10 ppm resp. 0.001 % Sulphur content of car fuel you can find e.g. in Wikipedia abt. EUronorm

EN 590 • Power of ULCS like Emma Maersk and no. of Cont / TEU you can also find in Wikipedia. • on Marinetraffic.com you can find some info about what engines are installed on certain vessels. • The assumption of 4 kg fuel usage per car is from my side, assuming that 4kg is roughly

equivalent to 5l and 5l last for roughly 60 km or 40 miles.. That’s roughly 22000 km or 15000 miles per year is realistic.

• The typical consumption per kwhr you can find in MAN Diesel facts

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)-–-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.lr.org/en/_images/213-34172_global_marine_fuel_trends_2030.pdf http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwjy4Z6r-cTIAhXEPRoKHYd-BhE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eea.europa.eu%2Fpublications%2Fthe-impact-of-international-shipping%2Fdownload&usg=AFQjCNGhu-wZnCSViqL1-t0R6ZDKsFE0Ww http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-container-vessels.pdf?sfvrsn=20 http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-bulk-carriers.pdf?sfvrsn=16 http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/propulsion-trends-in-tankers.pdf?sfvrsn=20





If you investigate above links you may begin to understand how some CLIMATE SCIENCE Scientists have blocked Critical Scientific information to protect their own work. This has had a deadly global consequence in the form of Droughts, Cancer, and Rapid ice melt and the knock on effect of war, famine and inundations. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/greenland-is-melting?mbid=synd_digg

Why a sea breeze is no longer healthy: Particle pollution from shipping is far worse than anyone imagined

• Traffic on the seas produces high levels of harmful nanoparticles • Researchers estimate it may contribute to 10 000 premature deaths a year in the Baltic alone • PLUS 100,000 new cases of Cancer due to shipping Particles = Clean Fuel IS NOT WORKING! • The particles can travel long distances over the ocean carried by the wind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3327622/Why-sea-breeze-not-good-anymore-Particle-pollution-shipping-far-worse-thought.html





Historical Records May Underestimate Sea Level Rise Oct. 18, 2016 http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/historical-records-may-underestimate-sea-level-rise

Alarming, is March162015.?ThemeltingofAntarcticawasalreadyreallybad.It justgotworse: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?postshare=731471349290050&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b92bf4e0fcb3TheUNMUSTACTFAST”ONSCRUBBERS”somuchwaterasealevelr iseofmorethan11feetjustfromAntarctica”aconservativelowerl imit,” includeGreenlandorwelooseBelgium”HollandandDenmarkyearsaheadoftime.?

From the EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY the ongoing melting that has been incorrectly blamed on CO2, when instead it’s all about older soot embedded in snow coming around again to enhance melting combined with weather pattern changes.. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/03/another-alarmist-pillar-collapses-greenland-melting-due-to-old-soot-feedback-loops-and-albedo-change-not-agw/ ShippingCo2&SOOTisaGlobalCatastrophedrivingABRUPTCLIMATECHANGEyearsaheadofpredictions.That’swhyIPCCice-freewaswrongby80years.SOOTEffects=ACIDRAINfromIFO380/180/MDOBUNKERFUELwithNOGasCleaning=SCRUBBERSwillkilleveryFishEveryOysterEveryShrimpEverythingEveryKrillinthatOCEANinlessthan25years.!





THE WORLD’S BIGGEST RISKSThe Earth’s dying oceans threatened with mass extinction

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/20/the-earths-dying-oceans-threatened-with-mass-extinction.html

Large Swaths Of The Pacific Ocean May Actually Suffocate In Just 15 Years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-oxygen-loss-oceans_us_57226e80e4b0f309baf0499e





WARNING to EVERYONE. If you find things like this Climate Science & NGO’s become your worst Enemies, they will spare no means to stop you. Greenpeace & Friends of the EARTH plus Ice Climate Science literally would prefer me DEAD. Greenpeace & Friends of the EARTH on the IMO panel from 2000 to 2007 did every thing they could to STOP my numbers. They had 80 million tons for global shipping I had 400 million. Ice Climate Science did the same from 2014 to 2016 = GEUS Denmark Prof Jason Box mislead COP21/22” he could have warned COP21/22 about Rapid ice melt due to SHIPPING SOOT” he had the Data” Greenpeace and him they blocked it all instead? 2007 Shipping Bermuda triangle: http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/shippings-bermuda-triangle5 1 ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars 2004 to 2008 http://www.slideshare.net/jornw1/singapore-2008-winkler

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Jan Søndergård <[email protected]> wrote: Hej Jorn, Det tilsendte ser spændende ud. Men DESVÆRRE er der ikke resssourcer blandt de teknisk velfunderede folk her til at kaste sig ind i denne sag. Beklager - og god vind fremover Jan Søndergård Politisk rådgiver i Greenpeace Mobil 2896 9026

Someone at GEUS mislead COP21/22?

Education

Transcript of Someone at GEUS mislead COP21/22?