Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 381041 times)

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1650 on: November 30, 2018, 10:22:16 PM »
I suspect the immense heat capacity of the oceans is simply dampening the time to equilibrium effects of the 50% increase in CO2 concentration from pre-industrial.  Give it a millenium or so.

The sudden swings in sea level tend to add doubt about that millennium estimate.

How so?  Sea level depends mostly on melting of ice on land masses.
If the mean temperature of the lower atmosphere goes up by 2 degrees C, how long does it take for the mass of the oceans to rise in temperature by a corresponding amount?

The accumulating heat of the earth at present won't be fully reflected in surface temperatures until heat stops going into the oceans and raising their heat content.  We know that total heat content of the oceans is increasing, so we know surface temperature increases don't fully reflect the current planetary radiation imbalance.

Actual evidence comes before theory.  That is how so.  Fact is that there have been numbers of large changes in sea level that have happened on time spans more like decades than millennia.

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1651 on: November 30, 2018, 10:39:39 PM »
I suspect the immense heat capacity of the oceans is simply dampening the time to equilibrium effects of the 50% increase in CO2 concentration from pre-industrial.  Give it a millenium or so.

The sudden swings in sea level tend to add doubt about that millennium estimate.

How so?  Sea level depends mostly on melting of ice on land masses.
If the mean temperature of the lower atmosphere goes up by 2 degrees C, how long does it take for the mass of the oceans to rise in temperature by a corresponding amount?

The accumulating heat of the earth at present won't be fully reflected in surface temperatures until heat stops going into the oceans and raising their heat content.  We know that total heat content of the oceans is increasing, so we know surface temperature increases don't fully reflect the current planetary radiation imbalance.

Actual evidence comes before theory.  That is how so.  Fact is that there have been numbers of large changes in sea level that have happened on time spans more like decades than millennia.

We may be talking past each other here.  In the face of warming of the planet, there can clearly be rather rapid melting of land-based ice, raising sea levels rather quickly.

It does not follow, however, that full themodynamic equilibrium with the mass of water in all the oceans has reached anywhere near equilibrium, even after all ice has been melted.  Surface temperatures won't fully reach such equilibrium until after the oceans have warmed.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1652 on: November 30, 2018, 11:37:02 PM »

 Sea level depends mostly on melting of ice on land masses.

Sort of yes and sort of no? Until a few years ago the increase in sea level was more down to thermal expansion of the oceans than land ice mass loss. Now it is more due to loss of land ice - but where does the energy come from to do it.

At the moment the majority of (increasing) ice loss is from Greenland calving. But that is accelerated  by ocean water melting glacial tongues and attacking glacial grounding lines and gravity does the rest. So a goodly part of the energy for that ice mass loss comes from the oceans. If not for that calving Greenland would be accumulating mass, not losing mass. (Greenland is a lot warmer than Antarctica)

If I have got Abrupt SLR's postings about the Antarctic right, due to bathymetry this is even more true for the Southern Continent. Ice shelves are being melted from underneath, as are glaciers and ice sheets resting on the sea floor at great depth. Even in winter, with land temperatures n degrees below zero, where n is large, ocean currents still bring in warmth at depth to gnaw away at the ice. If / when the Antarctic circumpolar current weakens, this will allow yet more ocean warmth to get down south. It is this that is most likely to cause abrupt sea level rise, and the principal energy source is from the warming oceans.

The attached map shows how much of Antarctica is below current sea level.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1653 on: December 01, 2018, 02:50:48 AM »
Most / many ? IPCC scenarios envisage going over the +1.5 to +2 limit but then the miraculous (as yet non-existent) low-cost technology will exist to  directly capture many billion of tonnes of CO2 from the air which will gradually bring down the temperature increase to "reasonable" levels.

Some might say that this is cloud-cuckoo land but I am sure that those who presume to advise and govern us know what they are doing. (Looks for emoji for heavy sigh")

Of the four main CMIP5 pathways, only RCP 2.6 directly assumes net negative emissions and a decrease in atmospheric concentration.  The others (RCPs 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) gradually stabilize the concentration but without actual decreases.

The main factor in that stabilization is probably ocean uptake -- as anthropogenic emissions are reduced later in this century, at some point the downward flux in the ocean is able to start eating away at the anthro CO2 pulse. Eventually most of it will end up in the ocean, but it takes a looooooong time.

This, incidentally, was why a lot of people in the first half of the 20th century assumed that Arrhenius was wrong and AGW would never be a problem -- they assumed ocean uptake would be sufficient to handle anthropogenic emissions.  They didn't understand the shallowness of the mixed layer and the low rate of mixing into the deep ocean.  Then (a) Keeling showed that actually the CO2 is in fact accumulating in the atmosphere, and (b) a bunch of oceanographers and geochemists (Takahashi et al.) explained why -- the ocean is too slow to absorb emissions at the rate we're generating them now. 

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1654 on: December 01, 2018, 02:52:25 AM »
All the science I can find on 400+ppm CO2 in the atmosphere before present says the global average temp was 4-6c higher than today.

I'm not sure where that is coming from.

According to the IPCC fifth assessment report, Chapter 5:

Quote
During the mid-Pliocene (3.3 to 3.0 million years ago), atmospheric
CO2 concentrations between 350 ppm and 450 ppm (medium confidence)
occurred when global mean surface temperatures were 1.9°C
to 3.6°C (medium confidence) higher than for pre-industrial climate.

Thanks, Steven.  You beat me to it.

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1655 on: December 01, 2018, 07:23:43 AM »
“The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3°C warmer and sea level was 10-20 meters higher than now,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/11/29/a-simple-guide-to-all-the-scary-and-depressing-climate-change-news-at-the-moment/#1dad09a3776a

Not sure what Petteri's source is, but he make it sounds as though it was 3-4C above pre-industrial.

El Cid

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1656 on: December 01, 2018, 11:41:04 AM »
As for climate sensitivity and paleoclimate comparisons I strongly advise everyone to read these two short studies:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140001039.pdf

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why_the_Miocene_Matters.html

The first one gives a very wide range of 2-5 degrees (Centigrade or Kelvin) sensitivity for doubling of Co2 based on a metaanalysis of paleoclimate studies

The second says that the mid Miocene climatic optimum is probably (sort of) a good comparison to today's rapid Co2 emissions (and levels).

"Going further back into the Miocene, tropical sea surface temperatures were as much as 12°C warmer at 12 million years ago, with CO2 levels similar to today, estimated at around 400ppm. Ice was minimal in high northern latitudes and ice was restricted to inland portions of East Antarctica, while the rest of the continent supported temperate forests"

"The MMCO was ushered in by CO2 levels jumping abruptly from around 400ppm to 500ppm, with global temperatures warming by about 4°C  and sea levels rising about 40m (130 feet) as the Antarctic ice sheet declined substantially and suddenly. "

"Even allowing for that, the fact that models need a sensitivity of 4°C per CO2 doubling to recreate Mid-Miocene warmth suggests that the modern value is more likely towards the upper end of the IPCC range of 1.5-4.5°C than the lower end"


So all in all, it seems that a doubling of Co2 is more likely to lead to 4-5 degrees of warming and we are likely to get there by 2100. Of course this also means that NH midlatitude land areas (USA,Canada,Europe,Russia) are likely to get warmer by more than that, possibly 6-8 degrees...

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1657 on: December 01, 2018, 02:45:09 PM »

"Even allowing for that, the fact that models need a sensitivity of 4°C per CO2 doubling to recreate Mid-Miocene warmth suggests that the modern value is more likely towards the upper end of the IPCC range of 1.5-4.5°C than the lower end"


So all in all, it seems that a doubling of Co2 is more likely to lead to 4-5 degrees of warming and we are likely to get there by 2100. Of course this also means that NH midlatitude land areas (USA,Canada,Europe,Russia) are likely to get warmer by more than that, possibly 6-8 degrees...

The alternative is that there more involved than a simple temperature-CO2 correlation.  There were most likely other factors involved back then.

AmbiValent

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1658 on: December 03, 2018, 09:10:09 AM »
Has the current back-and-forth between periods of rapid ice growth and near standstill always been there (just with more ice), or is it a result of climate change, maybe via weakening the jet stream allowing warmer air to get to the polar region easier?
Bright ice, how can you crack and fail? How can the ice that seemed so mighty suddenly seem so frail?

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1659 on: December 03, 2018, 02:14:14 PM »
Has the current back-and-forth between periods of rapid ice growth and near standstill always been there (just with more ice), or is it a result of climate change, maybe via weakening the jet stream allowing warmer air to get to the polar region easier?
There was a discussion last year about how there are waves of above/below average melt/gain, and I think that has always been so, and probably due to temporary changes in wind, waves and temperatures. But the weather people hypothesise that global warming has weakened the polar jet stream and with big fat lazy Rossby waves weather patterns can stick around a lot longer.

Perhaps this is showing up in longer waves of above/below average freeze/melt?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

FredBear

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1660 on: December 08, 2018, 01:52:05 AM »
Goodbye Waves - I take these as the wispy ice patterns on the fringes of patches of melting ice floes, with open sea outside, seen on satellite pictures. Does anyone know what causes them, has anyone physically seen them? (I wondered if it was fresh water floating away from the ice being cooled by surrounding colder [below 0oC] salty water??)

johnm33

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1056
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1661 on: December 08, 2018, 01:24:32 PM »
"goodbye waves" Iirc W.D. coined the phrase, https://eh2r.blogspot.com/search?q=goodbye+waves
added, probably best to load just a couple of those posts, lots of images and animations.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2018, 01:33:27 PM by johnm33 »

Hopen Times

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1662 on: December 18, 2018, 01:43:55 PM »
Do any of you know how sea level rise will affect marine glaciers? In my head rising seas will affect melting and also make marine glaciers more unstable and speed up the collapse of the glaciers, but there is a big chance that I am wrong. 

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 654
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1663 on: December 18, 2018, 04:19:05 PM »
Do any of you know how sea level rise will affect marine glaciers? In my head rising seas will affect melting and also make marine glaciers more unstable and speed up the collapse of the glaciers, but there is a big chance that I am wrong.
It's not a simple question, let me try to answer:
* Marine glaciers (the big ones) can be more than a kilometer deep below the sea surface, and hundreds of meters above the sea surface. So a few meters of sea level rise should not change the picture much.
* On the other hand, if the glacier is finely balanced on its grounding line, a few meters of sea level rise could cause its front part to float, causing it to accelerate somewhat.
* However, a much stronger effect would be caused by the gravitational pull of the ice sheet. Should Greenland lose half its mass to melting, thereby causing several meters of SLR, the sea surface height around Greenland will lose tens of meters, as the ice sheet exerts a much smaller pull on the water around it. So remaining marine glaciers in Greenland will actually experience the opposite of SLR.
* In such a case of only Greenland melting, local SLR around Antarctica will actually be higher than the global average, as Antarctica is on the opoosite side of the globe from Greenland.

I hope this helps.

FrostKing70

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1664 on: December 18, 2018, 06:10:57 PM »
Oren,

Could you please post the source material for a possible sea level drop near Greenland?   I am struggling with the mass of the ice sheet being enough to create that large of a gravitational pull on the water nearby!

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 654
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1665 on: December 18, 2018, 07:11:38 PM »
Could you please post the source material for a possible sea level drop near Greenland?   I am struggling with the mass of the ice sheet being enough to create that large of a gravitational pull on the water nearby!
When I first read about this phenomenon I was surprised myself at the magnitude. Layman's intuition certainly doesn't work here.
It's easy to find sources discussing the gravitational pull of ice sheets, but it took me a while to find a source that actually provides a number.
Here's one that mentions a potential 300 ft drop around West Antarctica.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/12/ice-sheet-in-peril-gravity-to-rescue/

And another one explaining that the effect was first discovered in 2009.
https://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

A new article in the Guardian about the issue and related matters.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/sep/12/greenland-antarctic-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise-science-climate

Hopen Times

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1666 on: December 20, 2018, 09:43:39 AM »
Thanks, Oren.

RealityCheck

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1667 on: January 07, 2019, 09:59:45 AM »
I have searched the forum using 'cite' and I can't find the answer, so I still have my 'stupid' question: in light of past comments i have read in some threads regarding referencing of material posted on ASIF, how exactly should work and analysis by contributors be cited? Is there a procedure to follow e.g. contact them by private message for permission, etc? How should the citation be made if a poster uses a handle instead of a real name? Should the ASIF be explicitly referenced as the publication location, etc...? Is there a format we could follow that would be acceptable to members here? Apologies if all this is already addressed - and if so, could I ask for a pointer to it please? Thanks.
Sic transit gloria mundi

uniquorn

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1668 on: January 07, 2019, 11:55:42 AM »
<snippage>
Is there a format we could follow that would be acceptable to members here?

Suggestion: ASIF et al and a link.
It is A team effort after all.

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2196
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1669 on: January 07, 2019, 03:23:47 PM »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2196
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1670 on: January 07, 2019, 03:43:53 PM »
And from Purdue:
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

RealityCheck

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1671 on: January 13, 2019, 01:35:26 PM »
Thanks Tor, for those detailed suggestions.
But beyond the manner of making a reference, what I am trying to discuss is whether forum members (or moderators) would like contributors to be asked, before reference is made to their work. This is not necessary for peer-reviewed papers, but I sense a greater level of personal ownership of material here than in scientific papers. If there are no opinions forthcoming on this, I guess each one will have to use their judgement when quoting (ie whether to have a private discussion prior to referencing.)
By the way, I take it as read that all use of others' work should of course be attributed... credit where credit is due, and all that...
Regards
Sic transit gloria mundi

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3059
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 654
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1672 on: January 13, 2019, 09:35:08 PM »
I would think that material posted on the ASIF is intended for public distribution by default, and there is no need to obtain specific permission. However, it is of course proper to credit the ASIF and the poster, by real name or forum name, as available.
It would also be proper to send a private message to said poster, letting them know.

Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1614
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1673 on: January 14, 2019, 03:10:13 PM »
Twice I've got a PM for this. I've asked for the purpose of the cite and given the permission after checking if the pm understands the context. Then several people have given their permission to spread the graphs they've made, but these permissions are not easily found as they're usually somewhere very deep in the respective threads. As a service for people like you, there could be a thread for these, but no one has seen it necessary. This still won't solve the issue since some do publishable graphs and speculative graphs and they may treat these differently with this respect, speculative graphs are not usually allowed to be cited by the scientists contributing, and you should have a damn good reason for spreading these. You might get a permission to do so if you do NoT attribute these to any partucular nick.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 03:21:27 PM by Pmt111500 »
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

RealityCheck

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1674 on: January 14, 2019, 09:16:48 PM »
Thanks Oren and Pmt, for those thoughts.
Pmt: As to which material to reference, well, yes, some judgement is required... :)
Regards.
Sic transit gloria mundi

Human Habitat Index

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1675 on: January 15, 2019, 12:53:00 AM »
Polar Amplification ->Loss of Arctic ice -> Increase in Polar Amplification -> wavy jetstreams -> more loss of Arctic ice -> SSW -> displaced Polar Vortex

Is this correct ? Is it a vicious cycle ?
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1676 on: January 15, 2019, 02:22:44 PM »
The SSW events are rather normal with big ones every 2 years.

 One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, decelerating the winds and warming the Arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming


gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1677 on: January 15, 2019, 03:12:34 PM »
The SSW events are rather normal with big ones every 2 years.

 One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, decelerating the winds and warming the Arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9 N.B. Opensource - pdf can be downloaded

The March 2018 paper by Judah Cohen quoted above states that these SSW events are increasing in frequency (and severity?) in the Arctic winter and even into spring as the Arctic warms. It also states that this is associated with severe weather events in the mid-latitudes of the USA and Eurasia. Effects are especially severe in the Eastern USA. In the western USA this effect may be neutral or even opposite.

The paper also demonstrates the WACCs hypothesis - Warm Arctic, Cold Continents. (figure attached). The paper is well worth a long read and saving (open access).

I just hope that little old England gets enough warmth from the Gulf Stream and a warming North Atlantic to be able to shed crocodile tears as Central Europe and eastern USA gets clobbered.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1678 on: January 15, 2019, 03:51:07 PM »
Not that I claim to know anything about SSW but the Italian forecasters seem to think this will be a huge event, as I've posted here.

kassy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1679 on: January 16, 2019, 01:34:40 PM »
We have one this year and had one last year so that looks like an increase in frequency although our data-set is still on the smallish side.

They could increase in severity too since they always happened but many were small.

Since the ice is so much weaker or in some places not event present the polar vortex is weaker now and because of the ongoing rise in global temperatures the incoming air will probably be warmer too.

On a slightly different note....they do bring cold weather to Europe but todays cold winter weather is a joke. During last years cold weather i heard so many complains but it was not that cold or long compared to the winters of my childhood (nor was the wind as nasty, the winter easterlies used to really bite) but they were before 1986.

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1680 on: January 19, 2019, 12:41:43 PM »
If ppm of C02 are increasing in the atmosphere, that must mean ppm of something else is declining. What other atmospheric gas is declining as CO2 increases, and does this need for something else to decline at all effect the rate of growth of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere?

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1681 on: January 19, 2019, 12:57:17 PM »
If ppm of C02 are increasing in the atmosphere, that must mean ppm of something else is declining. What other atmospheric gas is declining as CO2 increases, and does this need for something else to decline at all effect the rate of growth of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere?

Carbon in fossil fuels are burned(oxidised) to create CO2, so it is O2 in atmosphere that is declining. The effect on O2 in the atmosphere is negligible:

CO2  280 ppm  -> 410ppm (46% change)
O2 209590ppm -> 209460ppm (0.06% change i.e. you experience more effect of less oxygen at top of small hill than at bottom)

Obviously this change in O2 hardly makes any difference to the ability to burn fossil fuels.

Edit ppm typos
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:39:22 PM by crandles »

wdmn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1682 on: January 19, 2019, 02:35:00 PM »
Thank you