Have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them

Instead of casually debating the particular extent of global warming or specific timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.

We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant query now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

What are greenhouse gasses?

Greenhouse gasses are gasses are in the earth’s atmospheres that accumulate heat and light from the sun.  With too many greenhouse gasses in the air, the earth’s atmosphere will trap too much heat and the earth will get too hot.  As a result people, animals, and plants would die because the heat would be too strong. 

Over the last three decades of the 20th century, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas releases. Due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change Co2 emissions are increasing to different regions.

Future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been estimated depending upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments ongoing in the world.  Fossil fuel treasuries are rich, and will not limit carbon emissions in the 21st century.

The popular media and the public often with the huge puzzle entitled as Global Warming with ozone reduction. Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduced stratospheric ozone has a trivial cooling control on surface temperatures, while increased troposphere ozone has a larger warming effect.

A disenchantment I would raise at last is if you look at the sympathetic of climate change by scientists - let's be charitable 95% of scientists say we understand the process and we are convinced there is global warming. The media reports this situation as 50-50 because they are always in the opposite side and they need to show their opposing characteristics. That's good, but I'm disappointed with the intention of the media as they do not reveal that there is a 95-5 percent discussion. It sounds like its 50-50. The public reads this and they can't make up their mind typically.