Joyful Noise

A New Global Awareness

Many humans consider global warming to be one of those nebulous, intangible, or esoteric topics of discussion. One reason why is because many humans do not see any significant or sustained impacts from global warming on their daily lives. They tend not to take the topic of global warming too seriously. For many humans, the matter of global warming is a classic case of the "in one ear and out the other" or the no-big-deal syndrome. For many, the seriousness of the matter simply does not seem to register.

In many respect, the global warming problem is similar to the overpopulation problem. That is to say, the Earth is a heavenly body of finite size; it contains limited natural resources (though many of the Earth's natural resources are renewable). The Earth only can host or support so many living creatures before it reaches its capacity to hold anymore. This simple reality is the chief reason why scientists keep advising humans to slow their population growth rate.

Similarly, whether you agree or disagree with the science behind global warming, it should be very easy for you to comprehend that despoiling and polluting the land, air, and water cannot continue unabated forever. For, in time, Earth will reach its capacity to regenerate and heal from all of the pollution that humans keep dumping on it. It is believed that human ingenuity will always find a way to overcome Earth's limitations, but it should be clear by now that human ingenuity is no match for the forces of Nature. For instance, on some future date when a giant asteroid starts hurling directly in Earth's path, then to duck, cover, and hope to survive the fallout from the impact are probably the only things that humans could do.

The global warming problem is akin to a levee built to safeguard against flooding. In normal times, the levee captures the periodic rainfall and holds it until the water recedes or begins to evaporate. However, if the locality happens to be inundated with multiple days of heavy rainfall, then eventually the levee would not be able to contain all of the falling rain. The levee would become filled with water, and the excess water would begin to flow over the banks of the levee. By the same token, climate scientists are projecting that, if humans continue to inundate the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, then the atmosphere, too, will become overwhelmed by these gases. In this case, the atmosphere would be equivalent to the levee, and the greenhouse gases would be equivalent to the falling rain. However, unlike a flooding levee, all kinds of dire consequences could result from global warming. There is every reason expect that, as more and more countries pursue growth and development, given current production technologies, then an even greater volume of greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere in the immediate future.

The global warming problem also is akin to the water problem. It often is asked, "How can there be a water shortage or even a water crisis when about three-fourths or 75% of the Earth's surface is covered with water?" Of course, the water problem exists because most of that available water on Earth is not suitable for humans to use. Of the 75% of water covering the Earth's surface, it has been estimated that about 95% of it happens to be salt water with the remaining 5% being fresh water. Absent expensive desalination facilities, salt water is not suitable for humans to use. Fresh water, on the other hand, is suitable for humans to use. One problem with fresh water is this: It is not equally distributed across Earth. It has been estimated that Brazil, Russia, Canada, Indonesia, China, and Colombia hold roughly 50% of the Earth's stock of fresh water reserves. Another problem with fresh water is this: Of the 5% of water on Earth classified as fresh water, it has been estimated that 68% of it is stored in the form of ice, namely, at the North and South poles. Of the 5% of water on Earth classified as fresh water, it has been estimated that another 30% of it is stored underground. Absent tapping into the underground fresh water, this leaves 2% of the 5% of freshwater for humans to use from rivers, lakes, and streams. The point is this: What benefit is it for humans to have an overabundance of water at their disposal if they cannot use it? By the same token, from the standpoint of humans pumping more and more pollutants into the atmosphere, what benefit is it for humans to have an overabundance of air at their disposal if that air, on some future date, should become unsuitable for them to breathe? The point is this: The appearance of an overabundance of fresh, clean air on Earth and the appearance of an overabundance of water on Earth can be deceiving once you begin to probe deeper into these issues. These precious natural resources, namely, water, air, and land, should not be taken for granted or abused. These precious natural resources should be nurtured.

Pollutant Emissions

Image Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior | National Park Service (NPS)

Concerning the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP 21) summit that was held in Paris, France beginning on 30-November-2015, its primary purpose was to devise ways to combat global warming. Leaders from close to 200 nations attended. Numerous delegates and other assorted participants also were in attendance. It was a cause celebre type of gathering. They agreed to devise and implement ways to limit and reduce the output of greenhouse gases, namely, carbon dioxide.

Effectively, the purpose of the summit was to save the Earth's atmosphere for future generations of life on Earth to enjoy and, indeed, for future generations of life on Earth to thrive. All of the COP 21 attendees deserve highest commendations and praises. It is a very good start towards tackling a serious threat to a decent quality of life for all on Earth. The summit's outcome is worthy of a little joyful noise. For, as you very well know, there is only one planet Earth, and there is only one atmosphere to sustain life on Earth. Thankfully, based on the success of COP 21, it appears as if more and more humans are beginning to realize that life on Earth is precious. It appears as if more and more humans are beginning to realize that life on Earth is something worth preserving, especially human life. Most importantly, it appears as if more and more humans are beginning to realize that, if life on Earth is to be preserved, then it is humans who must rise to the challenge and do the preserving.

Watch (NASA | 2014 Warmest Year on Record)

Watch (EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on 2015 Paris Climate Talks)

Watch (The President Delivers a Statement on the Paris Climate Agreement)

Through the use of graphics to depict the past, present, and future, the Global Carbon Project does an excellent job of crystallizing or bringing the greenhouse gas emissions issue into clearer focus. Click the following link to view's graphical presentation of the "Carbon Story":

Watch [Marvin Gaye, Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology)]

Most humans consider NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) to be a very credible source of information. Applicable scientists at NASA have concluded that global warming is real. Click the following two links to see NASA's perspective on global warming:

Big Questions Surrounding Global Warming and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Problem

Climate scientists have noted that the average temperature of Earth has been rising. These same climate scientists have concluded that most of the average rise in global temperature is attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The prediction is that, if humans continue to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current pace and if the average global temperature continues to rise, then at some future date, the consequences could be catastrophic. The expectation is that, if humans begin to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases that are being released into the atmosphere, then the global warming trend can be reversed or would be rendered tolerable. The 12-December-2015 COP 21 agreement in Paris, France, among other things, requires member-countries to devise means for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The long-term goal of the agreement is to aim for "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change."

The missing link to this 2°C goal is a lack of specificity. Most observers take the pre-industrial period to be circa 1750. If the COP 21 agreement is implying that "pre-industrial" should be interpreted to mean the year 1750 A.D., then it would have been helpful if the COP 21 agreement had explicitly stated so. Furthermore, the COP 21 agreement should have specified precisely what the average global temperature was in 1750. Otherwise, without some reference base for comparison, countries would not know whether they were attaining or missing the agreement's 2°C goal.

An alternate way to measure global progress in tackling the global warming problem could be to use, say, 2014 as the base year. Going forward, it could be measured to what extent, if any, there are year-over-year declines in the volume of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere, relative to, say, 2014's base volume of greenhouse gases emitted. Again, using 2014 as the base year, going forward, another way to measure global progress could be to measure to what extent, if any, year-over-year global average temperatures have been declining below, say, 2014's base temperature.

The scientific community is not unanimous in its support of the notion that the Earth has moved into a global warming phase. Opponents and skeptics of the global warming thesis contend that observed weather patterns are nothing more than naturally recurring, multi-year cyclical shifts with perhaps an aberration here and there. Opponents and skeptics of global warming contend that, given Earth's age in billions of years, climate scientists simply do not have enough empirical evidence to support their global warming thesis. The message of opponents and skeptics of global warming is this: Don't believe all of the global warming hoopla, fanfare, and hype. To be sure, several important questions have been raised surrounding the issue of global warming. These questions include the following:

Question: How do you know that the average temperature on Earth is rising (especially since modern humans have only existed for about 10,000 years and given that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old)? What has been the Earth's average temperature over time?
Answer: Scientists primarily use computer models to deduce the Earth's average temperature as it existed hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago. Additional evidence is fossilized such as the evidence found in the ice. During the 1880's, scientists began to collect direct data on global temperatures to augment the results of their computer models. Based on this collected data, the following link by the Earth Policy Institute gives yearly global temperature averages since 1880.

Temperature Converter:



In measuring changes in global temperature over time, the next graphic uses 14°Celsius (or 57°Farenheit) as the base temperature. Using zero as the starting point to represent the 14°Celsius base temperature, climate scientists measure how much, over time, temperatures are rising above or falling below this base. The next graphic shows a pattern of rising temperature, and it also shows rising levels of greenhouse emissions (namely, carbon dioxide emissions).

carbon dioxide concentrations / global temperatures anomaly

Image Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center | The Earth Observatory

Watch (NASA | Taking Earth's Temperature)

Watch (NASA | Piecing Together the Temperature Puzzle)

Question: How much carbon is being released into the atmosphere?
Answer: Carbon is released into the atmosphere by the forces of Nature, and it also is being released by human activities. Most scientists who have studied global warming also have concluded that the carbon being naturally released by Nature, by itself, does not account for a rising global temperature. Most scientists have concluded that rising carbon emissions due to human activities explain a rising global temperature.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, scientists estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm). By 2015 A.D., the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had risen to 400 parts per million, which means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 400 of them consist of carbon dioxide molecules. Climate scientists predict that if this rising pattern of carbon molecules continues unabated, then there will be a high price to be paid by humans in the form of adverse climate changes.

The next photo shows the extent of rising greenhouse emissions (namely, carbon dioxide emissions) over time. Proponents of global warming contend that the reality of dual rising greenhouse emissions and rising global temperatures is not a coincidence or fluke but represents a genuine change in climate patterns.

global carbon dioxide emissions

Image Credit: U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Question: What are the types of greenhouse gases? What are the sources of greenhouse gases? Which countries are top greenhouse gas emitters?
Answer: The next three photos provide some answers for these three questions.
2010 Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

Image Credit: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

2010 Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector

Image Credit: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

2011 Global CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion and Some Industrial Processes by Country

Image Credit: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s website contains an interactive emissions table. Up-to-date answers to the above three questions also can be gleaned from's interactive emissions table. Click the following link to view's interactive emissions table:

Question: What are some of the negative or adverse impacts of global warming?
Answer: The following graphic from provides an answer to this question—in addition to the pollution factor emanating from certain human activities.

Image Credit: Publications | Global Carbon Atlas

Next Steps

The final question becomes this: What can be done to mitigate or avoid undesirable climatic outcomes while maintaining a decent living standard? What are some next steps to contain and rollback the problem of a warming planet? Summits such as COP 21 are designed as a conduit for humans to come together, network, brainstorm, share best practices, and devise solutions to the problem of global warming.

Households, businesses, universities, and governments have roles to play in tackling the global warming problem. Each has to contribute ideas and behaviors towards reducing the human carbon footprint. Government's role mainly is to set environmental standards; to enact rules, regulations, and laws to codify those environmental standards; and to impose fines and penalties on those who do not comply with stipulated environmental standards.

In addition to conserving atmospheric purity, another big challenge facing humankind would have to be conserving water purity. There are three salient things that humans require to survive, and they are:

  1. a supply of clean air
  2. a supply of clean drinking water
  3. a supply of arable land on which to grow food to nourish the body

Of course, there are other basic necessities that humans require to survive. These other necessities include sleep, shelter, clothing, and reproduction.

Watch (Keeping Up with Carbon)

Watch (Top Ten Worst Pollution Problems)

I still maintain, however, that perhaps one of the most urgent threats to human survival is not global warming but is the threat of global nuclear warfare—and global chemical, biological, and radiological warfare. It doesn't take much for a hot-headed, bellicose, asinine leader to rise to power and trigger a nuclear war, and it could happen at a moment's notice.

Can you imagine it, that is, one hot-headed, irresponsible, foolish leader condemning the whole of life on Earth to extinction simply because he or she could not control his or her temper? What dispute between nations could be so horrible that it is worth killing every living thing on Earth? The answer is a resounding, "None!" There are better alternatives to conflict resolution between nations, and they include diplomacy, compromise, and consensus.

There are no words to describe the stupidity of a prospect such as the prospect of nuclear annihilation. Yet, such an end-of-time scenario for life on Earth is precisely the conundrum or bind that contemporary humans find themselves having to cope with each day. It is all so ridiculous and silly. So long as nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons are in existence and are hanging over their heads, all life forms on Earth are at risk of extinction. Humans simply need to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction, thereby, removing the risk of human extinction due to a use of nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological warfare. It is simply crazy how humans have allowed themselves to get entangled in this nuclear predicament, but the unabated human quest for superior weaponry has led to this nuclear cauldron. One of the biggest problems in the world today is that far too many humans sit around thinking about and preparing for fighting, hating, and killing one another. I am amazed—and simultaneously disappointed—at the amount of energy and brain power that humans devote to the business of killing one another. Is this the type of global apocalypse that humans want for Earth? Why must humans be in a perpetual state of anger, agitation, and animosity?

Watch (2012 Trailer #2)

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if all of the world's leaders in attendance at COP 21 had concluded the summit by agreeing to re-convene in a year to tackle the challenge of permanently ridding the Earth of all of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons? Such an agreement by the world's leaders to re-convene in a year for the express purpose of addressing the nuclear weapons challenge truly would have been a revolutionary leap forward for human survival and to save the planet for future generations of life to enjoy. After all, as of 2015, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had moved the hand of the Doomsday Clock forward from five minutes to three minutes before midnight. Humans urgently need to rollback the hand on the Doomsday Clock. Humans permanently should stop the hand on the Doomsday Clock from advancing forward from its current 11:57 p.m. setting as of 2015. It would be beyond wonderful—and perhaps divine—if the world's leaders actually came together and agreed to rid the Earth of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons without delay.

Watch (History of War - Fahrenheit)

Watch (10 Most Dangerous Weapons Ever Created)

Watch (Vangelis featuring Vana Veroutis and the English Chamber Choir, 12 O'Clock)

Joyful Noise

Even a hint of progress towards tackling the great challenges facing contemporary, 21st century humans is worthy of praise and celebrating. Getting something accomplished is better than getting nothing at all accomplished. So, in honor of the 12-December-2015 COP 21 agreement in Paris, France, I have decided to make a little joyful noise right here and now, and here it goes:

Watch (SASH! - Encore Un Fois)

Watch (Kris Kross, Jump)

Watch (DJ Jean, New Dutch Shuffle)

Watch (TLC, What About Your Friends)

Watch (Black Eyed Peas, Boom Boom Pow)

Watch (Benny Benassi featuring Kelis, Jean-Baptiste, and - Spaceship)

Watch [German Philarmonic Orchestra (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov), Flight Of The Bumblebee]

Trending Now:

Intellectual Property Disclosures: All videos and songs (as well as many of the images) referenced or spotlighted throughout this website are the legal and intellectual properties of others. All content and opinions on this website () are those of the author (Edward Bruessard) exclusively and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the contributors, creators, owners, and distributors of these referenced videos, songs, and images. The author holds no legal interest or financial stake in any of these referenced videos, songs, and images. The contributors, creators, owners, and distributors of these referenced videos, songs, and images played no role at all regarding the appearance of said videos, songs, and images throughout this website; they had no clue that this website would be spotlighting their works.