Yes, we can, but is not going to be very simple. Why? While some regions on Earth are experiencing a cooling trend, the overall average temperature has increased about 0.74 degrees Celsius since the 1800s. Climatologists believe this trend will continue with potentially devastating consequences for the humankind and the environment.

So what can be done? Is there a way to reduce or even reverse the warming trend? Or can we only take measures to avoid making it worse? There are some measures humans can take to slow, halt or perhaps even reverse the warming trend. These are some of the measures that experts are suggesting.

One way to affect global warming is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are important. Without them, the Earth would lose heat too quickly and life as we know it would be impossible to sustain. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb heat in the lower atmosphere and reflect it back to the Earth. But according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), humans are increasing the greenhouse gas effect through carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Most of the climate change problem is an energy problem. The dominant cause of climate change is carbon dioxide being emitted to the atmosphere, and by far the principal source of that is burning coal, oil and natural gas, in that order.

What you have to do is reduce the rate at which you emit those fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere. And there are essentially three things you can do to do that. The first is quit wasting energy. So you quit wasting energy. You can reduce energy and consumption in cars by more than 50 % without compromising safety and without compromising performance. You can reduce also energy consumption in things like cement and steel and chemicals by very significant fractions, depending on the technology used.

So we can reduce between a third and a half of the problem just by stopping the waste. So that's number one..

The second is to accelerate the development of clean technologies. So if you look at the total electricity produced by solar energy today, it's trivial. It's a very tiny number. But if you look at the growth rates in solar and the reduction in costs in solar, then it's not hard to say that in five years, in 10 years, in 15 years, this becomes a very significant, very significant source of energy. Solar energy, for example, photovoltaic panels -- they put them in the sun and they convert sunlight directly into electricity -- have dropped in price 50 % in the last year alone, and they keep going down. You have to overpay when they're expensive in order to make them cheap tomorrow. But using solar energy the problem will not be solved. You need to take in addition to solar energy onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal and biomass, and in some countries nuclear energy as well.

To use more renewables we must keep down the costs of their use. We need really serious investments in clean technology and energy R&D.

Assuming that the IPCC's conclusions are accurate, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and planting trees could help slow and eventually reverse global warming trends. It takes time for the environment to absorb carbon dioxide. Right now, humans are producing carbon dioxide faster than the environment can absorb it. It doesn't help that humans are also clearing large regions of forests for various reasons -- that reduces the carbon-absorbing abilities of the environment, too.

But even if we were to convince everyone to stop cutting down trees, start re-foresting the planet, switch to environmentally friendly fuels and energy production methods, and generally try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth's temperature could continue to climb. It could take a very long period of time, some experts said around 1 000 years, after a complete halt of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental measures like sea level and ocean surface temperature to return to pre-industrial levels. In addition, other factors besides greenhouse gas emissions can contribute to global warming.

There's no question that if warming continues, it'll cause big problems for all living men, animal and plants. Sea levels will rise as ice melts at the Arctic circle. Farmers will see reduced yields in crops as the temperature climbs. Certain regions will experience extreme weather events like heat waves more frequently. And it's possible that we'll see bigger hurricanes more often.

Apparently, we have a lot of feasible technical methods for ameliorating global warming. What we lack is the will and determination of the political and financial leaders. Grassroots approaches, based on clear,scientific reasoning are needed to push our leaders to do the right things.

In San Francisco and Seattle there are the beginnings of movements to divest the investments of collective funds out from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy companies. (Similar to divestment movements against South Africa's old apartheid practices?)

Meanwhile, on the national scene and globally, many of our elected and appointed officials are hooked on petroleum as a source of jobs and national income, not to mention the profits for the influential petroleum industry. This is the actual state of affairs, in spite of many of these same leaders acknowledging the consequences of global warming and the role that burning fossil fuels has in this.

The just released UN report on global warming will, hopefully, help persuade people to become more proactive, especially the common man/woman.

Eventually, if/when we get the politicians on board, a separate organization needs to be formed that sidesteps all the problems associated with bureaucracies. For example, during the 50's and 60's, NASA was formed for nonmilitary space research and development, and The Aerospace Corporation was formed for military space R&D. They were started from scratch, recruiting the best scientists and engineers from around the world and partitioning them from the contracting/business side of the house. The results were phenomenal and could not have been accomplished otherwise. To tackle global warming issues, a similar organizational entity needs to be founded.

A systems approach needs to be taken. For example, problems in easing the transitions from petroleum-based industries to alternate energy industries need to be addressed, including re-training workers. All the interrelated and aspects need to be included in the approaches taken. Feedback mechanisms need to be clearly defined, including psychological factors. Because the systems are so complex, modeling and simulation are necessary tools.

Where to start? Start with dialog and evidence-based recommendations of scientists and engineers.

By cleanly producing energy!

Eolic power could satisfy all present and future - direct and indirect - energy demands, with really low costs!

Please, consider VertEolo project (http://www.r-site.org/VertEolo/index.htm / the book on researchgate.net titled Project for powerful wind power plants with vertical axis of rotation).

Your comments and questions are sincerely welcome!

I would like to add to the above that carbon dioxide gas can be captured from the air and stored underground as is done in the North Sea. There are other methods proposed to remove it from the air. If that can be achieved the warming trend can be minimized.

There is reluctance for governments to move away from oil companies that provide so much in tax revenue. Therefore, the warming trend might not reverse at all.

Dear Antonio,

This is an interesting question, and a similar one I have been researching on for the past few years. I share similar view like you do, and I have also considered global warming as anthropogenic- manmade (why?). However, it is on this matter (and on certain aspects of GW), there still remains lack of absolute consensus about whether global warming-induced climate change is manmade or natural.

The problem is with those who deny global warming; the naysayers' opinions and the contrarian views hurled against global warming activists. I am not sure if it is our (researchers) job to convince them on account of scientific evidences supporting climate change, but to some extent it depends on their own perception of climate warming, or about any future catastrophe owing to global warming. Furious debates are still going on between the sceptics and the believers and unless a general consensus is drawn it is futile (according to skeptics) to label climate change to human activities, the claim which however, is overwhelmed by convincing scientific evidences and media coverage about receding polar ice sheets and the rising sea levels (and some shifts in habitation patterns, range retractions etc.).

Here is an interesting article about this debate:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/

Warm Regards, Sidharta

GLOBAL WARMING CAN BE TAKEN TURN UP BY RENOVEBL ENERGY LIKE SOLAR PANELS JENERATES SO MUCH OF RADIATION NEARBY EARTH SURFACE . SECOND ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WIND ENERGY DEPLOYED THE VEGETATION

It requires evolution of clean mind beyond clean energy revolution.

@Bikash:

Dear Bikash, you stated: "It requires evolution of clean mind beyond clean energy revolution."

I think I sense what you are driving at from an Eastern spiritual point of view (not a Western scientific point of view).

My interpretation of this is that beyond the clean energy revolution (a scientific approach), you correctly state that the solution requires the "evolution of a clean mind."

Of course, the mind is not a physical organ, unlike the brain. So I would suggest that you avoid the word "evolution" which evokes the ideas of genetic changes over generations. Instead, I would suggest that you use, perhaps, a word like "development" or "training."

We need to learn or re-awaken or open our minds to respecting and loving Nature. From this beginning, we will automatically shun exploitation and depredation of our environment and implement scientific/technical solutions to promote net clean energy.