CTBTO 2026Evidence & methods

Can AIS explain the measured shipping noise?

Some selected high-exposure windows are louder than their lower-exposure comparators. The evidence does not yet establish ship-specific attribution or out-of-sample prediction.

Positive contrasts—and a reversal

Three of four preselected H01W pairs have a positive measured energy contrast at both 63 and 80 Hz. One reverses at 80 Hz. None establishes repeated directional agreement; the close-cargo case is directionally disfavoured.

Inspect the four pairs →
-20510Dominant passengerP1, 63 Hz: 2.40 dBP1, 80 Hz: 5.53 dBCompeting tankerP2, 63 Hz: 0.29 dBP2, 80 Hz: -1.80 dBClose dominant cargoP3, 63 Hz: 9.54 dBP3, 80 Hz: 7.20 dBCompetitor trackP4, 63 Hz: 7.49 dBP4, 80 Hz: 2.88 dBΔ measured band level (dB)63 Hz80 Hz

Model a vessel

102,629 admitted AIS records have source spectra and a Fast TL estimate. Juan’s 674 records also have all eleven one-to-one RAM frequencies.

Map, SL, TL and RL →

Inspect the measured sound

30 of 113 merged Juan arrival windows contain some calibrated SPL. Partial support is not a complete six-hour window.

SPL through time →

Compare prediction and measurement

The Highlighted 21 retain measured spectra, fixed 6 m predictions and admitted draught sensitivity. The measured curve includes the whole soundscape.

Highlighted comparisons →

Inspect the wider study

Propagation sensitivity, spectral structure and hydrophone-array consistency remain distinct tests, with their own scopes and limitations.

Measured products → · Propagation →
Scope and evidence cutoff

This is a presentation refresh over saved products. The broader report receipts are dated 2026-09-04 15:13:25 UTC; the Juan RAM and arrival products retain their own source receipts. This is not a live worker-status display.