what would not driving hybrids, not going green, and letting global waming happen do to the world. describe it

Question

what would not driving hybrids, not going green, and letting global waming happen do to the world. describe it? describe the world 50 or 100 years from now

Answer 1

Probably much cooler. The climate isn't effected by what you drive, but it is effected by the Sun.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity,"

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,"

Answer 2

the north and south pole are like air conditioners for the world. the hot air goes over the poles and cools down. but now that they are melting, it earth will be warmer and the sea level will rise. also, since the poles will be gone, the sunlight won't reflect off the poles anymore and the oceans will become warmer because water absorbs heat. And since the poles are fresh water there will be less salt in the oceans and many species of fish will die because they are used to a certain amount of salt in the water. The sea level will rise, the whole penninsula of Florida will be under water. Manhattan will also be under about 3 feet or so of water.

Answer 3

ONCE AGAIN....

Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!" It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!

The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!

HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"

HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?

DO THE MATH!

And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!

Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!

Thanks, RR

Answer 4

some hybrids are a mans car. i would rather drive a car that gets great gas miles than one that gets like 8 miles/gallon. if they would make a hybrid dodge charger that got like 40mpg i would soooooo buy that ish

Answer 5

It won't be a Hollywood movie style disaster. Gradually coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be damaged. But it will be very bad. Rich countries will cope, but it will take huge amounts of money. In poor countries many people will die of starvation, but not all of them.

More details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Most scientists say, in 20-50 years. But we need to start right now to fix it, fixing it will take even longer than that.

Really good website for more information here:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Lots of numerical scientific data proving it real here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

And it's been PROVEN that it's not the Sun:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

The key phrase in Jello's cite is "small number" as in "Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics [note, NOT a climatologist], is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies."

Answer 6

unlike RR under me, i think that the sea level will rise and unlike RR i think that part of every country in the world will get smaller from the flooding that occurs. I also think people will die because of overpopulatiion. Right now, in the U.S., there is no overpopulation. When a quarter or so of land gets covered by water, we may have a slight problem with towns and cities being a little overcrowded.

Answer 7

You think hybrids and going green will affect climate change ? Please. If you want to know, just wait because the hybrids and carbon reduction are just a passing thing. Once people realize these things have no effect and only cause economic harm they will go away.

Answer 8

Nothing very dramatic will happen-- in 10-15 years they will be writing stories about the 1960s "love" generation and how they went from one false crisis to another.

Answer 9

the answer is NOTHING.

Because small symbolic adjustments to individual carbon foot prints won't even make a dent in greenhouse gases, if people were really serious about this they would be demanding nuclear power plants by the dozen instead of this wind turbine in every back yard nonsense.

Answer 10

Well, the largest consensus of scientists believe that CO2 measured in Parts Per Billion (ppb), should not rise above about 550 PPB, if we want to keep the planet from heating about 3 degrees. Anything more than than and some rather nasty feedbacks start happening (and may already BE happening) - namely the collapse of larger ice-sheets in the Greenland ice-mantle as well as in the Antarctic Ross Ice Shelf.

More seriously would be the thawing of the permafrosts of the Artcic Circle (Canada and Russia) have vast frozen arctic swamplands - should these remain unfrozen for larger portions of the year (currently about 45-55 days of the year), we can expect massive releases of methane which would cause further temperature increases. Making the planet warming in the poles and having a "run-away" effect.

Having said that, the world could still adapt however, things would be decidedly changed when you consider another issue which conservatives (until very recently) and most oil companies still refuse to discuss - this is "Peak Oil" , or the point when we will be obtaining the maximum amount of oil from the ground that we are ever going to be able to.

Since the usage of oil is not just stable but increasing rapidly each year, and the supply is essentially fixed at or near our current production capacity, we stand to endure permanent increases in oil and gasoline prices.

This sounds all good - the "problem" of CO2 emissions would be solved automatically, unfortunately, this does not take into account that there are no really viable alternatives to the massive oil inputs we have to the US and the "western" world.

So you are really asking two separate questions. Going green for the environment is nice and as Vice President Cheney says virtuous, however going green to extend the amount of oil available is down-right patriotic and absolutely essential for the foreseeable future.

Failure to do this means a couple of things.

1. Increasing "shocks" to our economy to the point where we are in something resembling a permanent recession because of disturbances to the oil and gas prices impacting our costs to do "business as usual".

2. Eventually (about 2020 or so) , gasoline will be so expensive (given current trends of prices increasing 25cents per year or so), that in another 15 years or so, we will be paying well over 6 dollars per gallon - of course the currency will not be worth that much since most of our stuff that we purchase needs to be transported and grown with or picked up USING oil/gas so we can expect nearly 4% inflation year over year as prices increase, since the economy simply isn't growing that fast and - again - we "feel no need" to encourage conservation, we will be ALOT poorer, as a country. The "average" citizen will be making the "same amount" with increases and such, those dollars just won't go as far - thats the difference.

3. Continued wars - the relative easy and distinct lack of any significant loss of life during the Iraq war denotes that we don't really have an appreciation for how nasty the "resource" wars will likely become. For instance - for the US to properly secure oil in the Saudi Penninsula - a very likely probability - if we choose to do nothing - would involve mandatory drafts - some 2-3 million mostly younger people in the US, serving overseas. It's very likely that our "invasion" of the actual holy lands of the Muslim people will make whatever Mr. Bin Ladin's crew have done to make Iraq difficult look like a picnic, We will likely be in the position of having to setup "nuclear" perimeters around the fields we wish to control - by nuking large stretches of empty desert turning them into radioactive kill zones for anyone moving into or through them.

4. As a nation we will probably be in the position of having to internally secure any arab-looking peoples so we will have to "warm up" to the idea of more or less permanent detention facilities for "undesirables".

Eventually, it's very likely that while the US may be the initial "actor" to try to secure petrolium liquid reserves, it's very given the previous set of circumstances that eventually terrorists will succeed in massively crippling the US economy, this may or may not remove the US as an actor in the Middle East.

China - however either way has become increasingly important to the Middle East as a customer, and as of this year overtook the US as the world's main oil "customer".

While we may debate the various merits of the US trying to secure reserves by being "flexible" with regard to our constitutional safeguards, the Chinese do not suffer from such a set of ethical constraints, and plainly speaking our Islamst friends are simply unprepared and generally not even thinking about exactly how psychotic the Chinese might become if pressed with a loss of the oil needed to feed it's people and run it's economy.

Beyond the next 100 years however, it's very simple, as a species we will have either solved our "energy" crisis or we will not.

1. If we "succeed" - this success will likely come n the form of willingly developing super-hybrid cars, and eco-friendly high-density housing and aeroponic food growers and Fusion type energy distribution systems and geothermal, solar and wind for lower density energy uses - oil will be still needed but in the same way that we need other elements - not as a vast underpinning to our economic growth.

We will need various programs to keep carbon use and food production at acceptable levels and strongly encourage something like "one child" policies throughout the developing world. This does not necessarily dictate or require/imply a strong "world" government, but does involve the cooperation of many nations to work in ways we do not currently collaborate.

The climate will be altering as well, but again, regional programs for relocation and reallocation of scarce food resources "could" be handled peaceably, but moving large amounts of citizenry around to the dictates of the environment is not particularly viable, more likely each nation would be responsible for trying to restore or re plan their economies to accommodate adaptation to the availability of water or arable lands.

2. We "fail" in which case shortly after the price of oil exceeds what most countries citizens can afford (over about 10$/gallon) you "price out" about 70% of the world's population from access to oil in most any form.

This world is decidedly different, there are about 1/3 as many people in this world, not through pesky one child policies but largely through starvation we will have achieved a similar goal.

However the world will be a rather ravaged place, since because we did not "choose" to order the circumstances of our constrained climate and constrained energy supplies, the "first world" has largely collapsed into over militarized dictatorships where the larger cities are probably uninhabitable due to either terrorist of severe infrastructure decay.