NOAA says we can't change the climate for 1000 years

We are not capable of maintaining a static world. I would argue this point for several subject which are encompassed by our world...but today will be for the popular Climate Change condition(s).

According to this article, Climate Change (and the conditions expected to arise because of it) is here to stay for at least 1000 years even if 100% (that's all for you home gamers out there) of the CO2 emissions from mankind are ceased today. NOAA is the predominant authority on weather and climate thanks in part to a large number of satellites they have in orbit and their long time weather stations across the world.

Last week, a new satellite, though not from NOAA, was launched to take a new high-tech look at some key elements and conditions for our upper atmosphere. The initial results for that won't be out for at least a few months.

So what does this mean? You can be sure it means little or nothing to those who benefit emotionally, socially, politically, or financially from the greatest fear ever proclaimed. When considering the relative solidarity world leaders have demonstrated when addressing the issue of climate change and the sense of urgency we have been urged to share over the past several years, one should take this opportunity to consider an alternative: We are powerless to maintain a static world.

With so much time and effort dedicated to furthering the idea of humans as the Great Caretakers of The Earth including managing and taking responsibility for the (mass) extinction of plants, animals and even humans, the concept of hope to change the future has been the most powerful driving force for motivating people that the world may have ever seen. Consider also, please, people are generally self aggrandizing and arrogant with little true power on the cosmic level. I use the word "cosmic" in the context of space as it relates to Venus or the Sun or a supernova, not metaphysical or any other way.

It was previously known as Global Warming in the 90's and early 2000's. Before that, in the 60's & 70's the concept was known as Global Cooling. It seems that now, due to inconsistencies in the observations compared to the title (which inherently comes from the predictions) the term to settle on is "Climate Change". Guess what folks, change is coming and change is constant. The best and most consistent option we have observed for dealing with these, and indeed all changes, is adaptation and evolution.

Humans have taken developmental adaptation and evolution to the intellectual and communication levels which puts us in a much better position to work through these changes. Remember, if you don't believe in change, you don't believe in General Relativity and the concept of a finite universe.

Lest I continue on an unreadable rant I shall now conclude by saying:
The progress of mankind is regularly hindered throughout history by staggeringly misdirected focuses of urgency and effort which have often resulted in unexpected advancement achieved by correcting massive mistakes (No, Chris Columbus, there isn't a new route to Asia...just the Americas. Thanks for that anyway. We got something out of your journey.). Some good will come of human-kind's attempts at ruling over the natural world and even the Earth itself but I am more eager to embrace the idea that much greater advances could be made if there was not so much misdirected energy dedicated to controlling the sky and oceans. If we continue with the time honored tradition of having "dominion over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" we will eventually find a movement to try improving and protecting the Sun and the orbit of the planets because those things directly affect Earth. The proposal of such a movement is not as absurd a concept as I would like it to be.