Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?

What impact does cruising have on global warming? I hope to hear that it only contributes a very little bit.

Let's not get into such a debatable topic. FWIW, I believe that most, if not all cruise ships have exhaust scrubbers installed to reduce various emissions output.

Let's not get into such a debatable topic. FWIW, I believe that most, if not all cruise ships have exhaust scrubbers installed to reduce various emissions output.

I am more interested in hearing from those that are knowledgeable on the topic. I want to learn, not debate.

I am more interested in hearing from those that are knowledgeable on the topic. I want to learn, not debate.

There is no factual science regarding cruising and GW. You'll just get opinions and political discourse on this topic.

I am more interested in hearing from those that are knowledgeable on the topic. I want to learn, not debate.

I think the issue is that some people don't believe global warming is real. So to come in and provide information is impossible because they don't accept your premise.

I think the issue is that some people don't believe global warming is real. So to come in and provide information is impossible because they don't accept your premise.

I see. Would it have been simpler to have asked if cruiseships warm the water where they travel?

A lot less than all the cows on the globe! ;p:p:evilsmile:

A lot less than all the cows on the globe! ;p:p:evilsmile:

Yes I did learn about that already. Thank you.

I think the issue is that some people don't believe global warming is real. So to come in and provide information is impossible because they don't accept your premise.

It's not simply a matter of whether "global warming", "climate change", or whatever we are calling it this week is real, there is a lot of conflicting information on how much of it is truly cyclical, and how much human influence is truly contributing to any changes, as well as debates upon whether current evidence is truly accurate.

Do cruise ships warm the waters in which they sail. For a truly scientific answer, the friction and movement of water created by the ship's screws will cause a slight temperature rise of the water immediately surrounding said screws, though the effect will lessen as distance increases away from the heat source.

It's not simply a matter of whether "global warming", "climate change", or whatever we are calling it this week is real, there is a lot of conflicting information on how much of it is truly cyclical, and how much human influence is truly contributing to any changes, as well as debates upon whether current evidence is truly accurate.

 

Do cruise ships warm the waters in which they sail. For a truly scientific answer, the friction and movement of water created by the ship's screws will cause a slight temperature rise of the water immediately surrounding said screws, though the effect will lessen as distance increases away from the heat source.

I have no scientific direct knowledge to base this on other than just plain logical premise but with the almost countless gazillions of tons of water present with 70% of the earth's surface covered by it at depths that reach many thousands of feet, I can't imagine how any number of ships of any type plying the waters surface can have any measurable impact in terms of affecting even a minuscule amount of temperature change to the water.

But let the debate begin, as I'm sure my logic will be challenged.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jun/12/cruise-ships-environment-ocean-liners-emissions-waste

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I have no scientific direct knowledge to base this on other than just plain logical premise but with the almost countless gazillions of tons of water present with 70% of the earth's surface covered by it at depths that reach many thousands of feet, I can't imagine how any number of ships of any type plying the waters surface can have any measurable impact in terms of affecting even a minuscule amount of temperature change to the water.

 

But let the debate begin, as I'm sure my logic will be challenged.

I was being sarcastic to a point. The water immediately around the ships screws will see a slight increase in temperature due to heat transfer, but is likely negligible, and as you said, the sheer volume of water, not to mention cooler water temperatures at lower depth, will absorb and offset any net heat gain. My point in mentioning that was to vaguely answer the question, rather than engage in a highly debatable topic such as "global warming" or the term du jour.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Not to mention the questionable claims of multi-millionaire Al Gore. There also other theories surrounding global warming as a way to tax prosperous nations instep submission under various UN sanctions and agendas. Whole other discussion for sure.

It's not simply a matter of whether "global warming", "climate change", or whatever we are calling it this week is real, there is a lot of conflicting information on how much of it is truly cyclical, and how much human influence is truly contributing to any changes, as well as debates upon whether current evidence is truly accurate.

 

Do cruise ships warm the waters in which they sail. For a truly scientific answer, the friction and movement of water created by the ship's screws will cause a slight temperature rise of the water immediately surrounding said screws, though the effect will lessen as distance increases away from the heat source.

To be clear, I believe in science and so I believe in global warming. Idk exactly what you're saying but I want my position to be clear.

To be clear, I believe in science and so I believe in global warming. Idk exactly what you're saying but I want my position to be clear.

I also believe in science, yet the science and "facts" put forth by those believers in man made global warming has been debatable and questionable at best. There is plenty of evidence also available supporting global warming, yet not linking it to man made influences. Please don't confuse your OPINION with fact. There is also ample evidence suggesting that many scientists who are on board with man made global warming may have, in fact, either falsified research data, or have been paid to state the claims they have.

Bottom line, I don't really care WHAT you believe or don't believe. I was stating that there is no conclusive science on either side to determine whether or not global warming is indeed influenced by human activity. I could give you many sources disproving your claims, so I still stand y my assertion to not confuse opinion with fact.

I also believe in science, yet the science and "facts" put forth by those believers in man made global warming has been debatable and questionable at best. There is plenty of evidence also available supporting global warming, yet not linking it to man made influences. Please don't confuse your OPINION with fact. There is also ample evidence suggesting that many scientists who are on board with man made global warming may have, in fact, either falsified research data, or have been paid to state the claims they have.

 

Bottom line, I don't really care WHAT you believe or don't believe. I was stating that there is no conclusive science on either side to determine whether or not global warming is indeed influenced by human activity. I could give you many sources disproving your claims, so I still stand y my assertion to not confuse opinion with fact.

Are you sure that you didn't want to debate this. That's kind of what you are doing.

I was being sarcastic to a point. The water immediately around the ships screws will see a slight increase in temperature due to heat transfer, but is likely negligible, and as you said, the sheer volume of water, not to mention cooler water temperatures at lower depth, will absorb and offset any net heat gain. My point in mentioning that was to vaguely answer the question, rather than engage in a highly debatable topic such as "global warming" or the term du jour.

I got that, and agree. Mine was similarly intended....to a point! ;)

Are you sure that you didn't want to debate this. That's kind of what you are doing.

I was clarifying my point-plain and simple. Opinion is NOT fact. My opinions not factual, nor was hers. End of story.

I was clarifying my point-plain and simple. Opinion is NOT fact. My opinions not factual, nor was hers. End of story.

I was referring to your first post actually . You dove in first and from what you wrote I thought that you were a one and done.

I was referring to your first post actually . You dove in first and from what you wrote I thought that you were a one and done.

No, I'm not "cb at sea." I think of her as a drive by poster. She posts one reply in darn near every topic on the boards, and never returns to follow up. No wonder she has like 65,000 posts on here.

I think a more pertinent question would be "What environmental impact does a cruise ship have?"

How that impact (if any) manifests itself is the nub of the global warming debate.

Reduce the impact ergo reduce the disputed global warming seems to me to be utterly sensible and (fairly) non controversial (except to the money men).

I would think that all of the people flying and driving to get to their cruise is having a much bigger and more direct impact on the environment than the ship itself.

I'm not sure I want to jump into what has become a fairly political thread already, but here goes.

Just like any other mode of transportation that burns petroleum products, the end product of combustion is carbon dioxide. So, whether or not you believe in global warming, the simple fact is that taking a cruise emits more carbon dioxide than if you didn't. Now, despite the FOE based article linked above, which I have frequently disputed as far as many of their claims, and their methodology, as well as the fact that the FOE looks only at cruise ships and not the remainder of the world's shipping (of which cruise ships are about 3%), shipping has been shown to be the most fuel efficient way to move cargo that exists today. Now, given that passengers on a cruise are not "essential" cargo, cruise ships are more efficient than taking a bunch of airplanes to various ports by thousands of people, and the hotel and restaurant energy used at those ports by those thousands of people.

Most cruise ships do not have exhaust scrubbers, the requirements for scrubbers is only about 4 years old, so older ships are retrofitting scrubbers as the economics and availability allow. While scrubbers do reduce the particulate emissions, and sulfur and nitrus oxides in the exhaust gas, the exhaust gas is still 98% carbon dioxide and water vapor. Ships without scrubbers only have to burn low sulfur diesel fuel when inside emission control areas (ECA's), like within 200 miles of North America. So, ships that rarely visit the US or the two other ECA's (North Sea and Baltic), may find that use of diesel on those occasions outweighs the cost of scrubbers.

And, even ships with scrubbers are not required to use them when outside an ECA, so they are bypassed, legally, to limit maintenance cost. And, again, cruise ship fuel consumption is a very small percentage of the fuel consumption of the world's shipping, which moves 75% of the entire world's economy.

As to warming the water, which I personally believe to be insignificant, it is far more a factor of the cooling water used by the ship to remove the heat from the diesel engines than the "friction" of motion. And, locally, this discharge of heated water can have effects on marine life, especially when the ship is stationary, hence the restrictions on temperature rise in stationary power plant and factory cooling discharges.

So, avoiding the global warming issue completely, I will only say that taking a cruise, in my opinion, is no less "eco-friendly" (in any of its many definitions) than flying or driving to a resort for a vacation.

Thank you for this information. The scrubbers would only need to be used close to port or in environmentally sensitive areas I gathered but who decides what area is environmentally sensitive?

Is there any way to know which ships are retrofitted prior to booking?

I'm not sure I want to jump into what has become a fairly political thread already, but here goes.

 

Just like any other mode of transportation that burns petroleum products, the end product of combustion is carbon dioxide. So, whether or not you believe in global warming, the simple fact is that taking a cruise emits more carbon dioxide than if you didn't. Now, despite the FOE based article linked above, which I have frequently disputed as far as many of their claims, and their methodology, as well as the fact that the FOE looks only at cruise ships and not the remainder of the world's shipping (of which cruise ships are about 3%), shipping has been shown to be the most fuel efficient way to move cargo that exists today. Now, given that passengers on a cruise are not "essential" cargo, cruise ships are more efficient than taking a bunch of airplanes to various ports by thousands of people, and the hotel and restaurant energy used at those ports by those thousands of people.

 

Most cruise ships do not have exhaust scrubbers, the requirements for scrubbers is only about 4 years old, so older ships are retrofitting scrubbers as the economics and availability allow. While scrubbers do reduce the particulate emissions, and sulfur and nitrus oxides in the exhaust gas, the exhaust gas is still 98% carbon dioxide and water vapor. Ships without scrubbers only have to burn low sulfur diesel fuel when inside emission control areas (ECA's), like within 200 miles of North America. So, ships that rarely visit the US or the two other ECA's (North Sea and Baltic), may find that use of diesel on those occasions outweighs the cost of scrubbers.

 

And, even ships with scrubbers are not required to use them when outside an ECA, so they are bypassed, legally, to limit maintenance cost. And, again, cruise ship fuel consumption is a very small percentage of the fuel consumption of the world's shipping, which moves 75% of the entire world's economy.

 

As to warming the water, which I personally believe to be insignificant, it is far more a factor of the cooling water used by the ship to remove the heat from the diesel engines than the "friction" of motion. And, locally, this discharge of heated water can have effects on marine life, especially when the ship is stationary, hence the restrictions on temperature rise in stationary power plant and factory cooling discharges.

 

So, avoiding the global warming issue completely, I will only say that taking a cruise, in my opinion, is no less "eco-friendly" (in any of its many definitions) than flying or driving to a resort for a vacation.

Thanks for the clarification on the scrubbers, and I did not mention politics in this thread, as we are here to discuss cruising. I think another fair question would be, though there may not be a clear answer on, would be whether the act of those passengers being on a cruise ship, are creating a lower impact than if they were at home living their normal day to day lives. Of course, that would also vary from person to person and their various lifestyles. I also read that article that was linked earlier, and thought the reporting and grading seemed rather arbitrary. I also noticed how there was a link from the article referencing citizens concerned with pollution from cruise ships, yet not a mention of commercial shipping. Requiring cleaner emissions on commercial shipping at all times would have a rather large increase in the costs required to ship the cargo they are now. Here's a thought on that---could it possibly be that the concerns are only being projected on the market segment that does not benefit everyone? Meaning, not everyone relies on cruise ships for their daily lives, so any increases in cost would only be passed on to the passengers, and not on to all consumers, as would be the case if emissions requirements became more stringent for all shipping.