turbguy + 1,405 January 1 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: PV=nRT Darn! You beat me to it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,405 January 1 15 hours ago, specinho said: I probably need you to elaborate what you are trying to say.. To elaborate, ask yourself this question... "What happen to the internal temperature of a system when the incoming heat is IMBALANCED by a reduction of the outgoing heat"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 2 9 hours ago, turbguy said: To elaborate, ask yourself this question... "What happen to the internal temperature of a system when the incoming heat is IMBALANCED by a reduction of the outgoing heat" Sublimation of solid co2 happens at -78.5'C. At ~4'C, the pressure of gas co2 in a container is ~41 bar. Yet, pressure required for gas co2 to form solid or dry ice is ~ 5 bar. Hence, shall you increase temperature of gas co2 in a container, it turns into solid. In addition, the first image shows frequency absorbed by co2 does not constitute heat. Combining both, the conclusion and deduction would be: 1. Co2 does not absorb heat 2. Increase temperature in a container will increase pressure and turn gas co2 into solid? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 2 11 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Read some books, your theories are always wrong. Vibrating faster is the definition of increase in temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature "Temperature is measured with a thermometer. It reflects the kinetic energy of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance." Also increase in volume at the same pressure is a increase in temperature by the ideal gas law PV=nRT V= nRT/P Clearly a change in volume is proportional to the change in temperature. R, P and n are held constant. Do the math ya little n@zi. 👆Kindly refer reply above to turbguy. There are people who oppress, torture or bully because they say they can and they want to. Playing pure insanely with power is regarded as n@zi. Not me. I do not have the power, nor I want to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,635 RP January 2 On 12/27/2023 at 4:09 AM, specinho said: If burning fossil fuel is the main culprit of climate change, why hasn't it been a problem during 100 years beginning 19th century until 1940s? Are you actually being serious with this question? I hope not for your own relevance Ever since the invention of the first coal-fired steam engines of the 1700s, our burning of fossil fuels has steadily increased. Across the globe each year we now burn over 4,000 times the amount of fossils fuels burnt during 1776. Clue:- population growth, industrial advancement of 2nd and 3rd world countries, increased need for energy (ie electricity) Cmon Speccy you must surely be pulling my plonker! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,405 January 3 (edited) 19 hours ago, specinho said: Sublimation of solid co2 happens at -78.5'C. At ~4'C, the pressure of gas co2 in a container is ~41 bar. Yet, pressure required for gas co2 to form solid or dry ice is ~ 5 bar. Hence, shall you increase temperature of gas co2 in a container, it turns into solid. In addition, the first image shows frequency absorbed by co2 does not constitute heat. Combining both, the conclusion and deduction would be: 1. Co2 does not absorb heat 2. Increase temperature in a container will increase pressure and turn gas co2 into solid? CO₂ absorbs heat quite well. It can be used as a great working fluid in a heat engine. "Frequencies" is one thing. "Power" contained within those frequencies is another. Integrate. Also, these are called phase diagrams. This one is for CO₂ (approximately). Edited January 3 by turbguy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 3 1 hour ago, turbguy said: CO₂ absorbs heat quite well. It can be used as a great working fluid in a heat engine. "Frequencies" is one thing. "Power" contained within those frequencies is another. Integrate. Also, these are called phase diagrams. This one is for CO₂ (approximately). Guy is too stupid to realize that environmental atmospheric chemistry happens at 1atm or less and in a narrow temperature range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 3 14 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Are you actually being serious with this question? I hope not for your own relevance Ever since the invention of the first coal-fired steam engines of the 1700s, our burning of fossil fuels has steadily increased. Across the globe each year we now burn over 4,000 times the amount of fossils fuels burnt during 1776. Clue:- population growth, industrial advancement of 2nd and 3rd world countries, increased need for energy (ie electricity) Cmon Speccy you must surely be pulling my plonker! You have missed the points... Despite 4000 times of increment, temperature change was still not an noticeable issue. Trees were still plenty, human population still in manageable size after many rounds of war, famine, etc. 1950s to 60s marked the starting point of change. World is at peace, advance in medical field saves uncountable number, intervention in prominent famine with food aids etc. Check out points you have missed in screenshot attached. Read in full, before blocking out things not in your preset mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 3 1 hour ago, turbguy said: CO₂ absorbs heat quite well. It can be used as a great working fluid in a heat engine. "Frequencies" is one thing. "Power" contained within those frequencies is another. Integrate. Also, these are called phase diagrams. This one is for CO₂ (approximately). CO2 goes through sublimation i.e. a change from solid to gas without liquid state. Your graph is probably incorrect. 2. Pardon me, i might have said it wrongly or unclearly. It is not frequency absorbed by co2 does not constitute heat. But the amount absorbed is so little that it is negligible. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 3 (edited) Light makes the molecules spin and vibrate (increases kinetic energy). The kinetic energy of the system is what defines temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy Edited January 3 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,405 January 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, specinho said: CO2 goes through sublimation i.e. a change from solid to gas without liquid state. Your graph is probably incorrect. I know quite well what sublimation of a solid means. Ice and snow also sublimate. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions that produce the sublimation of CO₂. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions where CO₂ changes phase from solid, to liquid, to gas, to a supercritical fluid. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions when CO₂ can be stored as a liquid. Yes, you can purchase cylinders of liquid CO₂. They are under pressure. Are you not familiar with Class B fire extinguishers? Edited January 3 by turbguy 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,635 RP January 3 6 hours ago, specinho said: You have missed the points... Despite 4000 times of increment, temperature change was still not an noticeable issue. Trees were still plenty, human population still in manageable size after many rounds of war, famine, etc. 1950s to 60s marked the starting point of change. World is at peace, advance in medical field saves uncountable number, intervention in prominent famine with food aids etc. Check out points you have missed in screenshot attached. Read in full, before blocking out things not in your preset mind. My friend it is you that is missing the point Until post war the amount of FF burnt was insignificant, since then with population increases and increased demand for heating + aircon, has sky rocketed! Hell aircon wasnt even a thing until the 1960's By the 1960s, most new homes in the United States were built with central air conditioning. By then, electric air conditioner window units were affordable and had come down in price from the early days; a 1938 Chrysler unit cost $416. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 4 On 1/3/2024 at 12:01 PM, turbguy said: I know quite well what sublimation of a solid means. Ice and snow also sublimate. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions that produce the sublimation of CO₂. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions where CO₂ changes phase from solid, to liquid, to gas, to a supercritical fluid. If you knew how to interpret the phase diagram, you can easily determine the conditions when CO₂ can be stored as a liquid. Yes, you can purchase cylinders of liquid CO₂. They are under pressure. Are you not familiar with Class B fire extinguishers? 😏 You mixed up. Ice and snow are solid form of water, polar molecules. If not mistaken, co2 is non polar. Wondering if you ever try to shake a co2 fire extinguisher? Any sound of liquid produced? Even if yes, once used, the critical point of pressure and temperature change will cause mainly gas remains inside? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 5 (edited) 16 hours ago, specinho said: Ice and snow are solid form of water, polar molecules. If not mistaken, co2 is non polar. CO2 is non polar in isolation in gas phase. However, it is highly polar inter-molecularity with the carbon in the +4 oxidation state and the two oxygens at -2. The strong partial positive charge on the the carbon makes it very reactive and polar when it interacts with other molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#Number_of_vibrational_modes Edited January 5 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 5 2 hours ago, TailingsPond said: CO2 is non polar in isolation in gas phase. However, it is highly polar inter-molecularity with the carbon in the +4 oxidation state and the two oxygens at -2. The strong partial positive charge on the the carbon makes it very reactive and polar when it interacts with other molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#Number_of_vibrational_modes 1. CO2 is linear, symmetry molecule. 2. Electrons are distributed evenly. Therefore, non polar. It dissolves mildly in water to form weak acid. Mildly not equals to " very reactive". 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,080 DM January 5 (edited) 5 hours ago, specinho said: 1. CO2 is linear, symmetry molecule. 2. Electrons are distributed evenly. Therefore, non polar. It dissolves mildly in water to form weak acid. Mildly not equals to " very reactive". did you bother to investigate how much of this weak acid is generated per year??? of course not 15 billion tonnes of full strength carbonic acid a year from carbon dioxide emissions if you convert this to its sulphuric acid equivalence 500 million tonnes of full strength sulfuric acid is dumped into the oceans/lakes every year..... we produce in acid plants 200 million tonnes a year....... do you think that as a society we would allow sulfuric acid plants to dump 2.5 times their annual production every year into the oceans???? of course not....but we do it through carbon emissions and some fools argue here that the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is all good......fools one mole of CO2 yields in the end one mole of Carbonic acid H 2 O + C O 2 ⇌ H 2 C O 3 , carbonic acid is formed by carbon dioxide reacting with water. one tonne of CO2 yields around 1.4 tonnes of Carbonic acid you can do the math....understand how the math works?????? (hint the added oxygen molecule increases the tonnage) remember acidification is a slow process so to remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and form weak acid in the oceans takes years that acid does not remove itself from the oceans all buy itself......... so all the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will keep lowering the ph of the oceans and fresh water lakes for years .......do you think that much of the marine life will survive acidified waters??????? The researchers estimate that the world's emissions of carbon dioxide will exceed 40 billion tons in 2023, including nearly 37 billion tons from fossil fuels.Dec 5, 2023 Ocean acidification National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov) https://www.noaa.gov › education › ocean-coasts › oc... Apr 1, 2020 — The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere. the PH of the great lakes is dropping and with this heavy metals go into solution........how did you do in your Inorganic/organic/water chemistry classes.........??? from your bot postings I take it you have no clue Edited January 5 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 5 (edited) 5 hours ago, specinho said: 1. CO2 is linear, symmetry molecule. 2. Electrons are distributed evenly. Therefore, non polar. It dissolves mildly in water to form weak acid. Mildly not equals to " very reactive". Clearly you didn't read my post (inductive effects). I straight out told you, in advance, what your crappy rebuttal was going to be. Read it again, out loud if that helps. Here it is: "CO2 is non polar in isolation in gas phase. However, it is highly polar inter-molecularity with the carbon in the +4 oxidation state and the two oxygens at -2. The strong partial positive charge on the the carbon makes it very reactive and polar when it interacts with other molecules." If you had looked at the vibrational rotational spectroscopy page you would have clearly seen that they have the CO2 spectra listed. Just FYI there are also induced dipoles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force If you want to discuss how symmetric a molecule is we use specific terminology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_group I could teach you a whole degree in chemistry if you actually read the material and had the mental capacity. We would have to start near grade school if you can't understand photosynthesis. I'll make this simple. CO2 is so reactive that you if mix it with some water, light, and some fancy catalysts you get food. Edited January 5 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 6 19 hours ago, notsonice said: did you bother to investigate how much of this weak acid is generated per year??? of course not 15 billion tonnes of full strength carbonic acid a year from carbon dioxide emissions if you convert this to its sulphuric acid equivalence 500 million tonnes of full strength sulfuric acid is dumped into the oceans/lakes every year..... we produce in acid plants 200 million tonnes a year....... do you think that as a society we would allow sulfuric acid plants to dump 2.5 times their annual production every year into the oceans???? of course not....but we do it through carbon emissions and some fools argue here that the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is all good......fools one mole of CO2 yields in the end one mole of Carbonic acid H 2 O + C O 2 ⇌ H 2 C O 3 , carbonic acid is formed by carbon dioxide reacting with water. one tonne of CO2 yields around 1.4 tonnes of Carbonic acid you can do the math....understand how the math works?????? (hint the added oxygen molecule increases the tonnage) remember acidification is a slow process so to remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and form weak acid in the oceans takes years that acid does not remove itself from the oceans all buy itself......... so all the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will keep lowering the ph of the oceans and fresh water lakes for years .......do you think that much of the marine life will survive acidified waters??????? The researchers estimate that the world's emissions of carbon dioxide will exceed 40 billion tons in 2023, including nearly 37 billion tons from fossil fuels.Dec 5, 2023 Ocean acidification National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (.gov) https://www.noaa.gov › education › ocean-coasts › oc... Apr 1, 2020 — The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere. the PH of the great lakes is dropping and with this heavy metals go into solution........how did you do in your Inorganic/organic/water chemistry classes.........??? from your bot postings I take it you have no clue Your chart is extrapolated from 1980 to 2100 to make it looks more significant? This is called " manipulation of data", yes? 👍 You have not realized you are contradicting yourself arguing global warming due to CO2 and acidification of ocean. 1. Owing to global warming, surface temperature of seawater is expected to have increased. Solubility of gas on the surface reduces with increased temperature. Understand? In addition, the hotter the temperature, the further away the gas is from the ground. It will be scattered higher in the sky. Lower percentage of contact, lower solubility. Temperate region with colder climate during spring and autumn, might have CO2 dissolved. CO2 evaporated quickly as summer approaching and ice formed during winter locks in molecules in places. No reaction takes place on the surface. Overall net outcome of interaction throughout the year might be near zero. 2. More than 86% of mineral found in the sea is alkaline in nature. Major ions are Na +, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+. Negative ions are chloride, sulphate, hydrogen carbonate. It has great buffering capacity. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 6 1 hour ago, specinho said: Your chart is extrapolated from 1980 to 2100 to make it looks more significant? This is called " manipulation of data", yes? 👍 1. Owing to global warming, surface temperature of seawater is expected to have increased. Solubility of gas on the surface reduces with increased temperature. Understand? No, extrapolation is not data manipulation; the actual measurements are the data. You then fit the data into a model and then extrapolate the best fit equation. There is no new data - only a model. You are correct that the solubility of gases decreases with increased temperature. However, you do not understand the impact of the fact that CO2 readily reacts with water which shifts the equilibrium to the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 January 7 21 hours ago, TailingsPond said: No, extrapolation is not data manipulation; the actual measurements are the data. You then fit the data into a model and then extrapolate the best fit equation. There is no new data - only a model. You are correct that the solubility of gases decreases with increased temperature. However, you do not understand the impact of the fact that CO2 readily reacts with water which shifts the equilibrium to the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle Briefly discussed extrapolation using biological quadrant in measuring population of bald eagle return in the United States in one of the topics. The example showed how extrapolation could be highly misleading in number calculated. Attached an image showing how public perceive extrapolation. You see what you want to see, which is not always any where close to truth. Weak acid has reversible reaction with this sign : <===> Not only to the right. Strong acid has one directional reaction sign : ===> 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 7 (edited) 3 hours ago, specinho said: Weak acid has reversible reaction with this sign : <===> Not only to the right. Strong acid has one directional reaction sign : ===> While it's already laughable that you think you can teach me any chemistry, it's even more funny when you use the wrong symbolism. The symbol ⇌ has two half arrowheads, one pointing in each direction. It is used in equations that show reversible reactions: the forward reaction is the one that goes to the right. the backward reaction is the one that goes to the left. FYI strong acid reactions are reversible. Edited January 7 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,080 DM January 7 (edited) On 1/5/2024 at 8:51 PM, specinho said: Your chart is extrapolated from 1980 to 2100 to make it looks more significant? This is called " manipulation of data", yes? 👍 You have not realized you are contradicting yourself arguing global warming due to CO2 and acidification of ocean. 1. Owing to global warming, surface temperature of seawater is expected to have increased. Solubility of gas on the surface reduces with increased temperature. Understand? In addition, the hotter the temperature, the further away the gas is from the ground. It will be scattered higher in the sky. Lower percentage of contact, lower solubility. Temperate region with colder climate during spring and autumn, might have CO2 dissolved. CO2 evaporated quickly as summer approaching and ice formed during winter locks in molecules in places. No reaction takes place on the surface. Overall net outcome of interaction throughout the year might be near zero. 2. More than 86% of mineral found in the sea is alkaline in nature. Major ions are Na +, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+. Negative ions are chloride, sulphate, hydrogen carbonate. It has great buffering capacity. you are posting babble....once again you are trying to use some kind of bot to gather info..... your knowledge of aqueous acid chemistry is on a 3rd grade level...at best in other words your word/chemistry BS salad proves you have no understanding of chemistry More than 86% of mineral found in the sea is alkaline in nature. Major ions are Na +, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+... so what .......those ions are already already tied up with CL- ......those existing ions are not reacting with the CO2/carbonic acid and not resulting in massive carbonate precipitation as is the oceans are not capable of adsorbing CO2 without a lowering of the Ph IE active acid formation is happening ...Got it.... you obviously ignored the reality that the Ph of the oceans is dropping from Carbonic acid creation due to CO2 adsorption where is the NaHCO3 coming from in the oceans in your equations???????????.......not giant deposits just waiting to nuetralize carbonic acid...no one is dumping 500 million tonnes of NaHCO3 a year of it into the oceans.... the oceans and lakes are becoming more acidic...pretty fucking simple...even a 4th grader can understand it....except you the lowering of pH also raises heavy metal concentrations...which is lethal to biotic life this is the reality of what is happening only massive volcanic eruptions will reverse the acidification...or the stopping the use of carbon based energy the massive volcanics needed to reverse the acidification will wipe out the human race...... the easiest answer is to stop using carbon based energy sources treating the oceans as a CO2 sink is pollution at its worst and even worse is the idiots, such as yourself, trying to BS it away Just asking, where did you get your degree in Chemistry???????? Bachelors??? Masters??? PhD???? Edited January 7 by notsonice 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135 January 7 8 hours ago, notsonice said: you are posting babble....once again you are trying to use some kind of bot to gather info..... your knowledge of aqueous acid chemistry is on a 3rd grade level...at best in other words your word/chemistry BS salad proves you have no understanding of chemistry More than 86% of mineral found in the sea is alkaline in nature. Major ions are Na +, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+... so what .......those ions are already already tied up with CL- ......those existing ions are not reacting with the CO2/carbonic acid and not resulting in massive carbonate precipitation as is the oceans are not capable of adsorbing CO2 without a lowering of the Ph IE active acid formation is happening ...Got it.... you obviously ignored the reality that the Ph of the oceans is dropping from Carbonic acid creation due to CO2 adsorption where is the NaHCO3 coming from in the oceans in your equations???????????.......not giant deposits just waiting to nuetralize carbonic acid...no one is dumping 500 million tonnes of NaHCO3 a year of it into the oceans.... the oceans and lakes are becoming more acidic...pretty fucking simple...even a 4th grader can understand it....except you the lowering of pH also raises heavy metal concentrations...which is lethal to biotic life this is the reality of what is happening only massive volcanic eruptions will reverse the acidification...or the stopping the use of carbon based energy the massive volcanics needed to reverse the acidification will wipe out the human race...... the easiest answer is to stop using carbon based energy sources treating the oceans as a CO2 sink is pollution at its worst and even worse is the idiots, such as yourself, trying to BS it away Just asking, where did you get your degree in Chemistry???????? Bachelors??? Masters??? PhD???? ROFL! Let us know in several billion years when the Oceans goes below Ph7 and actually goes acidic. Until then, the oceans will be getting better and better for plant and animal life. Suggest basic chemistry knowledge. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 476 GE January 7 3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: ROFL! Let us know in several billion years when the Oceans goes below Ph7 and actually goes acidic. Until then, the oceans will be getting better and better for plant and animal life. Suggest basic chemistry knowledge. His chemistry is correct. Heck, you are not even denying that the ocean pH is falling due to carbon emissions. Your "argument" is that the acidification beneficial, which is much different that saying it is not occurring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,542 January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: His chemistry is correct. Heck, you are not even denying that the ocean pH is falling due to carbon emissions. Your "argument" is that the acidification beneficial, which is much different that saying it is not occurring. Ahh you do mean sulfur dioxide emissions do you not? Better said world wide trade...Interesting topic..just who owns those tanker fleets, How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs. Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year. With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html Only to be compounded....it's time these offending nations to pay the Sulfur Tax...say goodbye to the Paris accords... A Shipping Rule Backfires, Diverting Sulfur Emissions From the Air to the Ocean https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17072023/ship-scrubbers-water-pollution/ World fleet development and composition In January 2023, the world’s merchant fleet consisted of 105 500 vessels of at least 100 gross tons (gt), of which 56 500 ships were over 1000 gt. Of the ships built in 2022, in gross tonnage terms, 93 per cent were completed in China, the Republic of Korea or Japan. Ship recycling happened predominately in India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. These economies jointly accounted for 86 per cent of ships recycled (on a gt basis). The world fleet reached a carrying capacity of 2.3 billion dead weight tons (dwt) in January 2023, 70 million dwt more than a year ago. Oil tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships accounted for 85 per cent of total capacity. World fleet capacity has expanded at varying rates over time. Growth in dwt averaged a firm annual 7.1 per cent between 2005 and 2010. Reflecting a consolidation in shipbuilding capacity and a downsizing of the ship financing market, the average annual growth has decelerated to 4.1 per cent per year since 2010. For a discussion of recent developments, see (UNCTAD, 2023b). https://hbs.unctad.org/merchant-fleet/ Edited January 7 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members