Do you think that in another 100 years time?

Question

countries will have had to revert back to horse power due to global warming issues?

If we can't move any further forward then we obviously have to move back to natural ways of transport to avoid any further pollution of the planet.

What do you think?

Answer 1

This of course would be a neo-Luddite's dream solution.  Not likely to happen, however.

Answer 2

No people will realise that it is total tosh and the planet is a living thing alot bigger than the human race.As the sea contributes more co2 than anything else on the planet why isn't it taxed

Answer 3

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------...

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Answer 4

1 that would never happen

gw ill get worse within a few years

in 100 years we wont have the earth

Answer 5

we are not going to be here if we cant help our planet

Answer 6

horses eat quite a bit. electric and hydrogen vehicles is my bet for the lucky survivors.

also, the question is a bit euro-centric; there are still plenty of places where horse or rather donkey power is a luxury, women still pull ploughs and dig with sticks.

Answer 7

No.

Answer 8

I really dont agree that we will have to revert back that far in time for a cure. We as a country have the ways and means to achive what we need to, to correct the problem. Its all a matter of curing our misunderstandings and stupidity first!!! With all of our achivements in space exploration and the billions spent in technology for it, are you telling me that a better answer dont exhist??? Untill we as a society kill the problems of our own negativities and reasons to dismiss the truth, we will just have to suffer in procrastination!!! So many sources are available to us now, and more coming in the future but, is slow to come to the rest of the world that refuse to make a change!! If more demand was expressed the supply would increase. It's coming but, its only a matter of time before everyone is on the same page!!! Solar, wind, hydrogen, wave generators, and geothermal heat, are all good sources that tells you that we dont have to revert back to the horse and buggy days. Right now, General Electric makes a cell that powers the space station for NASA. In a home application it can power it for over 20 years with everything left on in it, with no damage to the environment!!! One wind generator up in Canada can produce power to over 40,000 homes!!! Many things are possible but, if we allow the ones in power to controll the flow of it to us then we loose, while their pockets only get bigger from payoffs and bribes from factories and big oil. They do it with our drug companies, and many other things as well, so what makes you think that this is any differnt??? Polliticians took big pay offs from tobacco companies for years lining their own pockets. And now they cant deny the harmfull affects that smoking has on people anymore cause everyone got fed up with the lies and finally everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon to go against them now!!! Environmental issues are pretty much an example of history repeating itself again but, just in a different form!!! I wonder how many people that are disbelievers of global warming still think that smoking is not harmfull as well??? I really wanna know so, dont be afraid to step up to the plate and express your ignorance if you are one of these misguided idiots as well!!!

Answer 9

We will be wearing the same jackets, sweaters and tank tops that we are wearing now.... Mark my words.

Answer 10

NO. THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH

Answer 11

It almost feels like sometimes they want us to move back to the stone age.

Answer 12

No but we will all convert to electric cars and or hybrids.

Answer 13

i think life will be very different in 100 years time but it will have bugger all to do with global warming

Answer 14

There will not be another 100 years. The Mayan calendar says it all

Answer 15

it's hard to say, only if people do something know, like i just saw on the news and the increase in polar bears are decreasing by a big amount each day, like if we do, we will have some big challenges and struggles

Answer 16

In another 100 years are we going to be alive....I don't think so....and as selfish as we are....we don't care...because if we did care we would allow for wind, water, steam, off shore drilling, nuclear, and solar panels and anything else I did not mention to proceed forward...the Golden Gate Bridge was built in 2-3 years....you cannot plan a f**t in that time in this selfish self-centered society

Answer 17

The trouble with Humanism is that it puts too much emphasis on the "power of humans to change the world (planet)" which is nonsense.  Nothing we can do will change the climate, either hotter, or colder.  This happens in cycles naturally, and always has, always will.  People were worried about global warming back in the 1920's, then with global cooling in the 1960's, now again with global warming in the 1990's into the 2000's. God bless.

Answer 18

no the earth will be devoid of all fuel and you humans will freeze. you brought it on yourselves.

Answer 19

It is a nice thought but I feel that other forms of energy will take the place of fossil fuels,solar and wind energy are no were near there potential,and there is form of kinetic energy that are not in use now that can be developed

Answer 20

They are working on an alternative to natural fuels. Solar seems to be the way of the future and wind power. The gas and oil companies aren't going down without a fight. People have tried to introduce different ways of transportation but the oil companies buy their plans and toss them in the garbage. I know for a fact it has happened. There's just to much money at stake! I wouldn't mind riding a horse but it's just not practical now a days! I'd like to be around to see what happens though! ♥

Answer 21

One of the unknowns (besides whether global warming will be controlled) is whether a practical alternative energy source will be discovered. Right after the 2nd World War, there was a gush of optimism that atomic power would serve. You can see that in the science fiction stories of the period. That just didn't work out, small, light, safe, cheap fission engines are just not part of existing, or foreseeable technology. The other difficulty is that both uranium (and thorium) are only available in limited quantity. We would soon reach and pass peak uranium should a major push go that way. But fusion may be possible. However it is not something to count on.

I think, should we manage to burn all our fossil fuels, we will fall back on biofuels and conventional alternatives like wind, solar, and hydropower. That will be combined with much more efficient machines and nonsense like using biofuels to fly jets will not happen. We may see commercial sailing ships again, clippers even.

I would expect to see a considerable reduction in human population as we adjust to the limits of our new circumstances. It should be a much more peaceful world, war requires a LOT of energy, and a few plodding cart horses will fit right in.

Answer 22

Society has made that pretty impossible. Most people have at least a 30 minute drive to work, which would be impractical and impossible via horse every day. We'll never go back, we'll just move forward until we explode.

Answer 23

I think that our scientists will find a way to make a car or vehicle that works on alternative resources.