> In fact, any basic primer on CO2 will confirm that natural gas emits less
> CO2 per unit of energy generated than oil or coal.

The approximate figure is that coal emits twice as much CO2 as natural gas.
There are other advantages to natural gas as well such as zero emissions of
fly ash, and heavy metals. Also when compared to the use of gasoline,
natural gas does not emit as much nitrous oxides, sulfur, nor nitrogen
dioxide. Some nitrogenous gases emitted during the combustion of petroleum
act as indirect green house gases as a result of the capacity to impact on
ozone.

The basic science on climate change (climatologists do not call it global
warming since in some regions like the North Eastern portions of North
America there is cooling occurring as a result of the aerosols emitted by
coal, etc., and as well in the North Pacific there is increased cooling
downwind of China - a result of coal fired electric plants) is
indisputeable.

The basic science is founded on the fact that the greenhouse potent gases
such as CO2 have infrared absorption capacities that far exceed many of the
more common atmospheric gases such as oxygen, etc. For instance CO2 has an
infrared absorption capacity that is 27 times greater than the average
infrared absorption capacity of the existing atomsphere does in the
troposphere. The NO2 and N20 have absorption capacities that are over 1000
times greater, etc. Therefore if the increase in the concentration of C02 in
the troposphere has increased by 33 percent over the last century and the
concentration of CO2 represents say 1 percent in the troposphere then the
contribution of CO2 will be the proprotional.

The interesting thing therefore is that as the troposphere experiences a
greater load of green house gases, the effect will be most pronounced at the
surface of the earth. This is why as the satellites and balloon data
indicate a cooling in the atmospheric layer above the troposphere, in the
upper stratosphere for instance this confirms the role of increased thermal
absorption in the lower troposphere further confirming climatic change
hypotheses due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Recently there has been an increase survellience and monitoring of global
temperature data below ground. This data indicates that not only is the
surface temperature rising on average, but that also the subsurface if
warming. At present there are no predictions and hypotheses being expressed
as to what impact this warming will have on the earth. In Wisconsin for
instance the temperature has increased below surface even to depths of 20
meters.

There are lots of new predictions as well that are possibly negative for
life on earth. One of the most recent findings is that the ice on Greenland
has been studied and it was determined that prior to the last glaciation
(over 100,000 years ago) there was no ice on Greenland. As a result the
current prognosis is that if the C02 in the troposphere doubles by the year
2100 there is a distinct possibility that the ice on Greenland will melt,
causing the sea to rise around the world. There is yet no evidence that the
Antarctic ice cap will melt by that time however.

The bad news is that the temperature on average will increase dramatically
in the Arctic and result in serious impacts for migratory birds, caribou,
etc. Warm winters in the Arctic result in ice forming instead of snow on the
tundra which causes starvation in the Barrens Caribou. The death of large
populations of Caribou will impact native peoples, Polar bears, etc.

But there is possibility as well that a cascade of chage will occur. The
basis for this is that when snow cover and ice is reduced during the days
when the sun is shining in the Arctic the surface albedo will be very low.
Snow has the highest albedo in nature (that is snow reflects most of the
short wave radiation that strikes it), and this means that without snow and
ice cover in the North that there will be much more heating occurring on the
surface and more emissivity of the thermally important long wave radiation
that will ultimately become a new source of heat in the atmosphere. This
heat will be absorbed first by the troposphere and stored in the oceanic
water of the Arctic and will ultimately impact the hylaline layer in the
North Atlantic which is the major oceanic driver of currents that act as a
conveyor belt between waters in the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic. If this
cooler less dense water from the Arctic is not circulating normally and the
conveyor is impacted there are predictions of a cooling trend in Great
Britian and Northern Europe.

The reverse impact will be greater sea surface temperatures in the South
Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean. The worst impacts to sea life already
documented by climate change have been the coral bleaching wherein coral
dies off. Already in the Indian Ocean 70 % of the coral has died off due to
high sea surface temperatures. When the water reaches a temperature of 27
cel.an algal bloom develops on the coral and suffocates the coral. The coral
cannot feed properly either, and the coral dies, leaving a 'bleached'
appearance to the dead coral. The is significant since in 1998 there were 10
serious episodes of coral bleaching that killed off coral around the world.

The most serious consequence of climate change is the sudden shift in
temperature since most populations of animals and plants given enough time
can adapt by moving or by changing the physiology to changes in the
environment. However if climate change (sea surface temperature fluctuations
are not caused by warming of the atmosphere directly and solely but by a
variety of other changes such as currents, salt concentrations, ice, etc.)
is rapid then there is no way that biotic communities can adapt quickly
enough. Obviously coral is a very signficant and important ecosystem which
probably is the most diverse species wise after the tropical rainforests.
For instance a single coral reef may have as many as 3000 species of fish.

John Foster




So in the UK in 1990,
> natural gas contibuted 33% of the enrgy supply, but only 19% of the CO2
> emissions. I'm afraid that the writer's failure to grasp this basic point
> doesn't fill me with confidence about the accuracy of the rest of the
post.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Hope, Judge Institute of Management Studies,
> University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK.
> Voice: +44 1223 338194.   Fax: +44 1223 339701
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%