Is climate change happening.......the question of our generation

So is climate change happening?
Was half of the USA once covered in glaciation, that has been melting for the last 20,000 or so years?
The answer is yes and climate change is as much a part of the earth as it’s mountains and oceans.
Thus climate change is, quite a good and normal thing.

Extinctions are also a part of the natural order of things on this planet.
How good that is for the species that go exist is another matter.
I’m curious,
Have you spent any time looking into Earth’s history and the impacts that climate changes have had on the biological systems that belonged to the previous climate regime?
Have you spent any time thinking about how dependent our complex society is on a climate regime that had been at an amazingly stable regime for the past eight/ten thousand years - you know during the rise of civilization?
Do you think watching our coastal cities and facilities getting drown by rising sea levels is going to be a good thing for the people who’ll get to live through it?
Do you think droughts and torrential rains are good for farming and food production?
and so on and so forth . . .

Extinctions are also a part of the natural order of things on this planet. How good that is for the species that go exist is another matter. I'm curious, Have you spent any time looking into Earth's history and the impacts that climate changes have had on the biological systems that belonged to the previous climate regime? Have you spent any time thinking about how dependent our complex society is on a climate regime that had been at an amazingly stable regime for the past eight/ten thousand years - you know during the rise of civilization? Do you think watching our coastal cities and facilities getting drown by rising sea levels is going to be a good thing for the people who'll get to live through it? Do you think droughts and torrential rains are good for farming and food production? and so on and so forth . . .
8 to 10 thousand years in Earth terms is life half of a second in human terms. 20,000 years ago all of Canada and at least a third to half of the USA was covered in glaciation. Since this began to melt, 20,000 years ago, fully caused by normal climate change, all of the great works of mankind have been produced. Thus climate change is good, and should continue, as it will no matter what you or I say or do. Sea level. again 20,000 years ago sea level was far lower as the law of conservation of mass says that the same amount of Earth water was locked up in ice and not in the sea, thus sea level rise is normal and natural. If humans choose to ignore this and buy oceanfront homes, this is their choice. PS. Why then by your logic was New Orleans rebuilt after hurricane Sandy, when part of the city is actually below sea level to begin? This said while I agree with your sea level point to a degree, no one else seems to really care, governments included.
So is climate change happening? Was half of the USA once covered in glaciation, that has been melting for the last 20,000 or so years? The answer is yes and climate change is as much a part of the earth as it's mountains and oceans. Thus climate change is, quite a good and normal thing.
Normal is such an imprecise word. Natural is much better. Everything that occurs in the cosmos is natural. But the words good or bad are extremely relative and require a sentient being to assign them. Nature has no use for those ideas as nature is not sentient. As there is no evidence of sentient beings other that us, natural processes are neither good or bad. There is only survival or extinction. The evolutionary adaptations that allow some organisms to survive the natural changes in the environment, while others go extinct is a very natural process. The idea that organisms witin our natural environment have influence on the changes is obvious. All parts of nature are integral to it and therefore influence the changes that will naturally occoure. Environments do not operate in a vacume that excludes the influence of organisms that are part of that environment. To insist that our environment exists completely separated from our influence and has no effect upon it is extraordinarily ridicules. Humans are part of that natural environment and therefore influence the environment. We are however able to detect our influence and project the likely outcome of our influences on our environment. Something that puts us in a very special situation. We have the ability to take steps to influence the changes in our environment with the intention of lessening conditions we find unfavorable and increasing conditions we find favorable. Climate change deniers are basing their opinion on the premise that humans are somehow separate from nature and therefore special. It is just another religiously created view of our place in the cosmos that elevates us above the natural world as opposed to our being animals ourselves and being part of nature. The idea that the earth was the center of the solar systems is another aspect of that same religiously created idea that we are "special creations" of a deity of some sort. The diminishing influence and adherence to theism, religious dogma, and ancient texts being replaced by evidence based knowledge and understanding is a very natural process just as the invention of them was naturally occurring phenomenon. I will not be so arrogant as to claim that that evolving process is inherently a good thing. But I personally think it is. To discover our true nature as a part of nature is the most exciting aspect of this process that I embrace. The morals we used to believe were given to us by a deity or deities and ancient texts and where therefore separate from us, turn out to have come from us and are actually part of our nature, as they were all along. I suppose this idea is disturbing to those who believe we are above nature and accounts for much of their arrogance and bitterness they exhibit in the face of such facts.
So is climate change happening? Was half of the USA once covered in glaciation, that has been melting for the last 20,000 or so years? neither good or bad. There is only survival or extinction. The evolutionary adaptations that allow some organisms to survive the natural changes in the environment, while others go extinct is a very natural process. The idea that organisms witin our natural environment have influence on the changes is obvious. All parts of nature are integral to it and therefore influence the changes that The answer is yes and climate change is as much a part of the earth as it's mountains and oceans. Thus climate change is, quite a good and normal thing.
Normal is such an imprecise word. Natural is much better. Everything that occurs in the cosmos is natural. But the words good or bad are extremely relative and require a sentient being to assign them. Nature has no use for those ideas as nature is not sentient. As there is no evidence of sentient beings other that us, natural processes are will naturally occoure. Environments do not operate in a vacume that excludes the influence of organisms that are part of that environment. To insist that our environment exists completely separated from our influence and has no effect upon it is extraordinarily ridicules. Humans are part of that natural environment and therefore influence the environment. We are however able to detect our influence and project the likely outcome of our influences on our environment. Something that puts us in a very special situation. We have the ability to take steps to influence the changes in our environment with the intention of lessening conditions we find unfavorable and increasing conditions we find favorable. Climate change deniers are basing their opinion on the premise that humans are somehow separate from nature and therefore special. It is just another religiously created view of our place in the cosmos that elevates us above the natural world as opposed to our being animals ourselves and being part of nature. The idea that the earth was the center of the solar systems is another aspect of that same religiously created idea that we are "special creations" of a deity of some sort. The diminishing influence and adherence to theism, religious dogma, and ancient texts being replaced by evidence based knowledge and understanding is a very natural process just as the invention of them was naturally occurring phenomenon. I will not be so arrogant as to claim that that evolving process is inherently a good thing. But I personally think it is. To discover our true nature as a part of nature is the most exciting aspect of this process that I embrace. The morals we used to believe were given to us by a deity or deities and ancient texts and where therefore separate from us, turn out to have come from us and are actually part of our nature, as they were all along. I suppose this idea is disturbing to those who believe we are above nature and accounts for much of their arrogance and bitterness they exhibit in the face of such facts. Just a few years ago, it was considered obvious that CO2 was driving global warming. Now the IPCC says that there has been no global warming for at least 18 years. Since CO2 levels have risen steadily during this time, the connection to global warming and CO2 is dead, as wrong as Einstein's static universe, and the clowns have stopped even mentioning CO2 and changed global warming to climate change, because there is no warming. Without global warming there would be no US city above Trenton NJ, as everything north of this was under thousands of feet of ice. Thus climate change is good, as this land is much used and needed by humanity.
Now the IPCC says that there has been no global warming for at least 18 years. Since CO2 levels have risen steadily during this time, the connection to global warming and CO2 is dead, as wrong as Einstein's static universe, and the clowns have stopped even mentioning CO2 and changed global warming to climate change, because there is no warming.
Can you please show us exactly where the IPCC says the things you claim it does? But from the IPCC report, not from WUWT. Please support your claim.
Now the IPCC says that there has been no global warming for at least 18 years. Since CO2 levels have risen steadily during this time, the connection to global warming and CO2 is dead, as wrong as Einstein's static universe, and the clowns have stopped even mentioning CO2 and changed global warming to climate change, because there is no warming.
Can you please show us exactly where the IPCC says the things you claim it does? But from the IPCC report, not from WUWT. Please support your claim. He doesn't know how to do that. We shouldn't bait the obviously disabled. It's unkind. Lois

This is why the future of humans is most likely doomed. The fundies are proficient at taking segments of scientifically gathered data to confirm what they are already predisposed to believe. A perfunctory internet search reveals dozens of sites declaring what Coral referred to, with the associated inference that global warming is a hoax.
Coral, if you have any interest in the future of humankind, please, carefully, read this:
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Now the IPCC says that there has been no global warming for at least 18 years. Since CO2 levels have risen steadily during this time, the connection to global warming and CO2 is dead, as wrong as Einstein's static universe, and the clowns have stopped even mentioning CO2 and changed global warming to climate change, because there is no warming.
Can you please show us exactly where the IPCC says the things you claim it does? But from the IPCC report, not from WUWT. Please support your claim. He doesn't know how to do that. We shouldn't bait the obviously disabled. It's unkind. Lois Come on Lois, it is common knowledge that the head of the IPCC let the cat out of the bag..... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134 THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
This is why the future of humans is most likely doomed. The fundies are proficient at taking segments of scientifically gathered data to confirm what they are already predisposed to believe. A perfunctory internet search reveals dozens of sites declaring what Coral referred to, with the associated inference that global warming is a hoax. Coral, if you have any interest in the future of humankind, please, carefully, read this: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Well lets be rational here, first of all whether I read what you posted or not, will have no effect on the Earth or humanity. This is the big issue, there are people out there driving Toyota Priuses, seriously believing that the Earth is better off because that are doing so, this is nuts, every Prius takes the place of one say Corolla, and the net effect on anything is negative, except that the Corolla owner has a better car for less money. Next, and I will make this simple, there is more ice around the continent of Antarctica now, then at any time in recorded history, (which for ice is when satellite images were commenced in 1979). This means that everything you have heard is a lie, unless of course you have heard this.... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
This is why the future of humans is most likely doomed. The fundies are proficient at taking segments of scientifically gathered data to confirm what they are already predisposed to believe. A perfunctory internet search reveals dozens of sites declaring what Coral referred to, with the associated inference that global warming is a hoax. Coral, if you have any interest in the future of humankind, please, carefully, read this: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Well lets be rational here, first of all whether I read what you posted or not, will have no effect on the Earth or humanity. This is the big issue, there are people out there driving Toyota Priuses, seriously believing that the Earth is better off because that are doing so, this is nuts, every Prius takes the place of one say Corolla, and the net effect on anything is negative, except that the Corolla owner has a better car for less money. Next, and I will make this simple, there is more ice around the continent of Antarctica now, then at any time in recorded history, (which for ice is when satellite images were commenced in 1979). This means that everything you have heard is a lie, unless of course you have heard this.... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160 It's not you, individually, Coral, although you do seem extraordinarily energetic and profuse in spreading your misguided ideas. It is the climate change deniers, as a whole, who are putting humanity's future in jeopardy by grasping at isolated bits of data and over-generalizing to support their claim that global warming is a hoax. You do it again with your latest reference site. You do not acknowledge that the overwhelming data is that the southern ocean temperatures are rising. You do not acknowledge the clear massive decrease in the Arctic ice. You hold up a small increase in the perimeter of ice around the Antarctic, as all one needs to know to conclude that global warming is a hoax. You failed to acknowledge that there has been a drastic increase in the winds around the Antarctic that are contributing to the formation of ice formations that are less prone to melting. (And to what do we attribute this drastic change in the winds. Could it be that the climate is changing? Oh no! What could cause the climate to change? Could it be... Satan?) You would have been on firm ground, if your assertion was simply about the failure of computer models to predict the perimeter of ice increase, indicating that there is much that we don't know. But no, you can't stop with a rational argument, you conclude that, and I quote, "That this means that everything you ever heard is a lie...".
This is why the future of humans is most likely doomed. The fundies are proficient at taking segments of scientifically gathered data to confirm what they are already predisposed to believe. A perfunctory internet search reveals dozens of sites declaring what Coral referred to, with the associated inference that global warming is a hoax. Coral, if you have any interest in the future of humankind, please, carefully, read this: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Well lets be rational here, first of all whether I read what you posted or not, will have no effect on the Earth or humanity. This is the big issue, there are people out there driving Toyota Priuses, seriously believing that the Earth is better off because that are doing so, this is nuts, every Prius takes the place of one say Corolla, and the net effect on anything is negative, except that the Corolla owner has a better car for less money. Next, and I will make this simple, there is more ice around the continent of Antarctica now, then at any time in recorded history, (which for ice is when satellite images were commenced in 1979). This means that everything you have heard is a lie, unless of course you have heard this.... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160 It's not you, individually, Coral, although you do seem extraordinarily energetic and profuse in spreading your misguided ideas. It is the climate change deniers, as a whole, who are putting humanity's future in jeopardy by grasping at isolated bits of data and over-generalizing to support their claim that global warming is a hoax. You do it again with your latest reference site. You do not acknowledge that the overwhelming data is that the southern ocean temperatures are rising. You do not acknowledge the clear massive decrease in the Arctic ice. You hold up a small increase in the perimeter of ice around the Antarctic, as all one needs to know to conclude that global warming is a hoax. You failed to acknowledge that there has been a drastic increase in the winds around the Antarctic that are contributing to the formation of ice formations that are less prone to melting. (And to what do we attribute this drastic change in the winds. Could it be that the climate is changing? Oh no! What could cause the climate to change? Could it be... Satan?) You would have been on firm ground, if your assertion was simply about the failure of computer models to predict the perimeter of ice increase, indicating that there is much that we don't know. But no, you can't stop with a rational argument, you conclude that, and I quote, "That this means that everything you ever heard is a lie...". I have never denied climate change, as the climate of the Earth has actually been changing for 4.3 or more billion years, in fact the climate of the Earth was changing before the Earth had a climate, as something was changing to form the climate. So climate change is real, and has not been shown to be attributed to humans who did not start, or end the last ice age, which was started and ended by climate change. Humans not needed. As for my data, argue with NASA dude, leave me out of it.... Let me know how you make out. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
Extinctions are also a part of the natural order of things on this planet. How good that is for the species that go exist is another matter. I'm curious, Have you spent any time looking into Earth's history and the impacts that climate changes have had on the biological systems that belonged to the previous climate regime? Have you spent any time thinking about how dependent our complex society is on a climate regime that had been at an amazingly stable regime for the past eight/ten thousand years - you know during the rise of civilization? Do you think watching our coastal cities and facilities getting drown by rising sea levels is going to be a good thing for the people who'll get to live through it? Do you think droughts and torrential rains are good for farming and food production? and so on and so forth . . .
So let's get back at it again. There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. What IMO is the error of those who believe this is that their solution is to attempt to stop or reverse it when it appears the best we are going to do is, possibly, to slow it down. We need to adapt to the situation, not try to prevent on the backs of the poor, which most "solutions" to this problem do. Why should poor people in China; Africa and even in be the one to have to pay the price to keep the well off happy? I think here in the U.S. we should stop encouraging building in low lying area such as Long Island; Mississippi, Florida etc. and admit that the Great Plains is going to go back to being a desert and encourage people to move out of these areas, build much more rapid transit, etc. As evolution has proven adapt or die. This doesn't mean I am against trying to control climate change but recognizes that it will cause major cultural changes and we need to plan ahead for that.
Extinctions are also a part of the natural order of things on this planet. How good that is for the species that go exist is another matter. I'm curious, Have you spent any time looking into Earth's history and the impacts that climate changes have had on the biological systems that belonged to the previous climate regime? Have you spent any time thinking about how dependent our complex society is on a climate regime that had been at an amazingly stable regime for the past eight/ten thousand years - you know during the rise of civilization? Do you think watching our coastal cities and facilities getting drown by rising sea levels is going to be a good thing for the people who'll get to live through it? Do you think droughts and torrential rains are good for farming and food production? and so on and so forth . . .
So let's get back at it again. There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening. What IMO is the error of those who believe this is that their solution is to attempt to stop or reverse it when it appears the best we are going to do is, possibly, to slow it down. We need to adapt to the situation, not try to prevent on the backs of the poor, which most "solutions" to this problem do. Why should poor people in China; Africa and even in be the one to have to pay the price to keep the well off happy? I think here in the U.S. we should stop encouraging building in low lying area such as Long Island; Mississippi, Florida etc. and admit that the Great Plains is going to go back to being a desert and encourage people to move out of these areas, build much more rapid transit, etc. As evolution has proven adapt or die. This doesn't mean I am against trying to control climate change but recognizes that it will cause major cultural changes and we need to plan ahead for that. Do you really think that humanity can or should stop something that has been happening unabated for at least 4 billion years. Climate change is not pollution, this is the error that people make as they lump them together. Again the amount of ice around Antarctica is the most in the history of records, so nothing is melting there, and the glaciers that are melting, have been melting for 20,000 years. Thus this is normal natural and expected... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-expands-to-record-high-level-arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-sixth-lowest/ There are also more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago. The lies go on and on.
As for my data, argue with NASA dude, leave me out of it.... Let me know how you make out. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160
I am not arguing with your reference site. I checked it the 1st time that you posted it. (You should try looking at reference sites that people post to you.) I can't leave you out of overgeneralizing the info to fit with your uneducated view that current climate change is not influenced by human activity. I can't leave you out of it, dude, (or dudess) because it is you that is over-generalizing isolated bits of information to fit what you already believe. I can't leave you out of it, because it is you that makes proclamations like "Everything you ever heard about global warming is a lie." Seriously, if you are capable, it would be a really good idea to become more fully informed on an issue before so confidently espousing that you have the ultimate answer.
... Again the amount of ice around Antarctica is the most in the history of records, so nothing is melting there, and the glaciers that are melting, have been melting for 20,000 years. Thus this is normal natural and expected... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-expands-to-record-high-level-arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-sixth-lowest/ There are also more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago. The lies go on and on.
You confidently assert "nothing is melting there" (the Antarctic). You apparently don't even, carefully, read the reference sites that you infer somehow supports your non-sensical assertions. If you go to the end of the site that you referenced, you would be linked to a site, that discusses how the land ice on Antartica has been consistently melting at a high AND increasing rate. So much so, that most of the rise in the oceans level can be attributed to it. But, of course, you only want to read info that you think supports your pre-conceived notion (that "The lies go on and on."). Really. Isn't what you are doing here a kind of "lie"?
... Again the amount of ice around Antarctica is the most in the history of records, so nothing is melting there, and the glaciers that are melting, have been melting for 20,000 years. Thus this is normal natural and expected... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-expands-to-record-high-level-arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-sixth-lowest/ There are also more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago. The lies go on and on.
You confidently assert "nothing is melting there" (the Antarctic). You apparently don't even, carefully, read the reference sites that you infer somehow supports your non-sensical assertions. If you go to the end of the site that you referenced, you would be linked to a site, that discusses how the land ice on Antartica has been consistently melting at a high AND increasing rate. So much so, that most of the rise in the oceans level can be attributed to it. But, of course, you only want to read info that you think supports your pre-conceived notion (that "The lies go on and on."). Really. Isn't what you are doing here a kind of "lie"? The information comes from NASA, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160 So if you want to characterize NASA as supporting non-sensical assertions, feel free to do so. However the rational World will interpret this as your irrational assertion, and not mine. Again, since you missed it, 20,000 years ago, glaciers in North America, extended down into New Jersey, then they began melting. The connection between this melting that began 20,000 years ago, and the human industrial revolution that began about 200 years ago, is not just illogical, but mathematically disproven.
The information comes from NASA, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160 So if you want to characterize NASA as supporting non-sensical assertions, feel free to do so. However the rational World will interpret this as your irrational assertion, and not mine. Again, since you missed it, 20,000 years ago, glaciers in North America, extended down into New Jersey, then they began melting. The connection between this melting that began 20,000 years ago, and the human industrial revolution that began about 200 years ago, is not just illogical, but mathematically disproven.
Gotta do more than look at a picture and grab the most convenient excuse you can find. Did you notice the rest of the article, or any of the information to further studies?
While researchers continue to study the forces driving the growth in sea ice extent, it is well understood that multiple factors—including the geography of Antarctica, the region’s winds, as well as air and ocean temperatures—all affect the ice. Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds. As noted by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, some research has suggested that changes in Antarctic sea ice are caused in part by a strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.
Related Reading NASA Earth Observatory (2009, April 20) Sea Ice. NASA Earth Observatory World of Change: Antarctic Sea Ice. NASA (2009, September 1) What's Holding Back Antarctic Sea Ice from Melting. Accessed September 27, 2013. National Snow and Ice Data Center (2012, October 2) Sea ice down under: Antarctic ice and climate. Accessed September 27, 2013. National Snow and Ice Data Center (2013, September 17) Antarctic Sea Ice Extent (bottom of page). Accessed September 27, 2013. Parkinson, C. & Cavalieri, D. (2012, August 15) Antarctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2010. The Cryosphere, (6), 871-880. The New York Times (2012, October 3) Running the Numbers on Antarctic Sea Ice. Stammerjohn, S. et al (2013, March 16) Regions of rapid sea ice change: An inter-hemispheric seasonal comparison. Geophysical Research Letters, 39 (6). University of Washington (2013, September 17) Stronger winds explain puzzling growth of sea ice in Antarctica. Accessed September 27, 2013. Washington Post (2013, September 23) Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday. Accessed September 27, 2013. Zhang, J. (2013, September) Antarctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2010. Journal of Climate, In press.
...Again, since you missed it, 20,000 years ago, glaciers in North America, extended down into New Jersey, then they began melting. The connection between this melting that began 20,000 years ago, and the human industrial revolution that began about 200 years ago, is not just illogical, but mathematically disproven.
Wow, you have mathematical proof that humans did not effect the last ice age? I could have saved them time. No one thinks that. Humans have only existed on a scale with the industrial technologies to effect global climate, since more recently,
...The information comes from NASA, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160 So if you want to characterize NASA as supporting non-sensical assertions, feel free to do so...
NASA didn't assert that a tiny increase in the circumference of ice around Antartica, means that everything we've heard about global warming is a lie. That would be someone who goes by the moniker of Coral Star.