Friendly reminder that the Great Barrier Reef is gone. 25 mi

File: 1476403728556.jpg (44KB, 470x317px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 470x317px

Good night sweet prince.

F

May our grandchildren forgive us for this sin

>>8414469
It's not dead. It's 22% dead, you lazy stupid fuck. Do your research next time

>>8414530
i bet that still hurts though
imagine being 22% dead

>>8414469
>clickbait

>>8414535
You don't even have to imagine, just ask a diabetic

Why do Aussies hate nature so much? First the Crocodile Hunter harassed animals and didn't stop until it LITERALLY killed him and now this.

>>8414469
>picking the most sensationalist of entertainment "news" websites

>>8414555
Coral is in decline because of increased atmospheric CO2. Australians are as much to blame as any country burning fossil fuels.

File: large[1].png (204KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 500x358px

>>8414469

>express.co.uk

What is even more disheartening is the first comment:

>Got to say a few things:
>1. Its hard to tell the truth from the utter garbage in these claims. Literally, what are you expecting from certain people and from a website, which, as far as i can tell, is not even based in Australia (co.uk?). This information is just relayed and extremely exaggerated. Not only that, but it has bias in the way it only says things related to the supposed death of the reef, and no opposing cases.
>2. In the earths history, stuff has been happening for ages. This is one reef, sure its important, but keep in mind its just one reef. This is like nothing compared to mass extinction events like the one before the Cambrian explosion where pretty much everything died. We get our ice ages etc, and all the animals that couldnt change for the climate became extinct. Adapt or die, its always been a rule in nature, quite savage but in all cases true. If these reefs cant make it, either we play god and help out their genetics, or allow them to die off.
>3. The masses uninformed to the above preach articles like this. And dont even get me started on the fact that there must be some companies only worried for this because of the reefs touristic values. I may have said all the things above, but honestly as uninformed as i am about this, I can only lap up this prepared information. I feel the reef is extremely important as well, but here i am writing this behind a computer screen, and what can I even do? Nothing at all.. so let me just take this nihilistic viewpoint on life.
>
>Just wanted to add, nobody is ever going for the root of the problem. Clearly its a variety of factors, but i feel the need to point out the idiotic mining factories only out for money and the likes of them who want to dredge the reef. Just stupid.

>>8414760
>If these reefs cant make it, either we play god and help out their genetics, or allow them to die off.
Except we're already playing god. We're geoengineering the planet into one that is unable to sustain the vast majority of current life.

File: co2-marijuana-graph.jpg (14KB, 560x197px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 560x197px

C3 plants love CO2.

>>8414787
I sure hope they like droughts and flooding too because there will be a lot of that around.

clickbait lies

global warming is a joke

>>8414779
>implying anything man does isn't natural
>implying man isn't part of nature
>implying you or anyone know how our actions in the present will affect nature thousands of years from now

>>8415117
Cut your penis off.

>>8415131
The article is completely false and just clickbait.

The actual harm of global warming is null. There is no actual harm and earth is still in an ice age currently.

>>8415134
I'm having a bit of a surreal moment. I can't actually remember why I quoted you and responded the way I did. Why you specifically.

Very strange.

>>8415134
>The actual harm of global warming is null. There is no actual harm
It's amazing what you can believe if you make an effort to ignore knowledge.

>>8415136
You're psychotic anon.

>>8415223
I actually wouldn't be surprised if I had a limited form of DID. I've had a number of experiences where I believed I experienced something, in full, contiguously, and then very shortly after realized I actually didn't. Like I watched the debate the other day, wasn't multi-tasking or anything. Someone else in the house was also watching it, but was further back than me (hence it was staggered). Whenever I passed through and listened, I was hearing completely novel things. It was like a different debate. Not a variance in a general recollection of wording, I don't remember those chunks at all.

Coupled with rapid mental state changes and other stuff over the years, I have to wonder. I often feel like an amnesiac that's stuck in a limited, but ever shifting frame, and that I only think I know who I am, where I am, what I'm doing, or why. It reminds of the notion of a sleeper agent, which along with mental partitioning has always fascinated me. If you either remove memory, or create false memories, a person's entire notion of reality and contest is altered. They will not accurately understand the nature of their own actions.

Weird shit man. So yes, I could be psychotic. More likely though it seems a lapse in memory.

>>8415136
You need to get off the internet

>>8415251
I think you're right.

>>8415142
Life on earth has existed in many environmental configurations. The current configuration is exceptionally cold and an ice age.

Global Warming is not going to create a cataclysmic event that destroys all life on earth. The climate will simply change. Which is not actually all that bad for humans as "warmer" earth configurations are beneficial in many ways.

Climate change is much less damaging as compared to pollutants you are actually exposed to.

There is also the fact life on earth is exponentially improving in terms of knowledge and capabilities. Which means even the worst climate models are basically not going to impact human life in any meaningful way.

Of the actual threats to humanity it is pretty much the lowest and only begins to matter if humanity somehow stalls in all progress but the stall is not caused by catastrophic war (ww3)

>>8415280
The key point is to imagine two different things.

The encroaching "threat" of climate change.

vs

The exponential improvements in many areas of technology. (solar, wind, computing, quantum computing, genetics, etc)

Given these two competing things and the fact that the most pessimistic predictions of a singularity put it before the oceans rise 2 inches.

we will essentially have fusion power, stable life on mars, immortality, arbitrary genetic engineering, and super intelligence AI, before the threat of global warming starts to bother us. At that point it becomes absolutely insignificant compared to the existential risks posed by those technologies and existing technologies like nuclear war.

>>8415284
The problem is not that climate change and resource depletion will be an existential threat per se, the problem is that they will increase the risk of conflict and war.

File: crop yield consensus.jpg (305KB, 946x1374px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 946x1374px

>>8415280
>Life on earth has existed in many environmental configurations.
>Global Warming is not going to create a cataclysmic event that destroys all life on earth.
So what? Your arguing against I point I've seen no-one make.

>Which is not actually all that bad for humans as "warmer" earth configurations are beneficial in many ways.
>Climate change is much less damaging as compared to pollutants you are actually exposed to.
>Of the actual threats to humanity it is pretty much the lowest
Your blind assertions run directly opposed to all of the actual research I've read. Why should I believe you?

>>8415284
>we will essentially have fusion power, stable life on mars, immortality, arbitrary genetic engineering, and super intelligence AI, before the threat of global warming starts to bother us
I don't share your optimism. AGW is already causing problems, and I don't see any fusion powerplants anywhere..

>>8415316
Very excellent point.
>resource depletion
So we don't lose out on any resources by stopping the usage of coal and oil?

Your point is shit as the economic downturns caused by regulation and phasing out coal caused more instability than any imaginary effects of climate change. If you blame all weather effects on climate change as you nutheads do, even then it's not comparable.

>>8415348
low IQ detected

>AGW is already causing problems, and I don't see any fusion powerplants anywhere..

Nice strawman.

I won't respond to your post because it's mostly shit and not actually reasoned.

>>8415284
pop sci armchair psuedoscience: the post

File: solar-price-installation-chart.jpg (46KB, 650x353px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 650x353px

>>8415430
Yes, exponential technologies are a meme, obviously.

>>8415412
The ice sheets and permafrost are melting, animals are migrating, island nations are becoming flooded. It's already happening.

Nobody gives a shit.

ONLY YOU DO.

FUCK the "great" barrier reef.

>>8415280
This guy gets it but will be branded a HERETIC in these parts. Only "true believers" around here.

Carbon emissions have staved off the advent of a new ice age which is pretty fucking good news for humans. High water etc. is tough for some, but the ice would have fucked everyone. Nature pays the price, but so it goes...the manifest destiny of man to attain eternal life and knowledge or a state of nature and eternal frozen slumber.

>>8415471
Cut your penis off, repeatedly.
Many times. Cut it off many times.

>>8415412
>Your point is shit as the economic downturns caused by regulation and phasing out coal caused more instability
what in the actual fuck do you think you are talking about

there is no instability caused by regulations on coal you fucking moron. the very idea is fucking retarded.

the worst consequences of regulations on coal are some lost profits for mining and energy corporations. maybe there are some jobs lost in the coal industry but guess what, there are new jobs working with non polluting power and you wont be coughing up tar by the time youre 50 if you do them.

like how do you not see this level of disconnect from the economic benefits of corporate profits and a few basis points to gdp and actually causing social instability and affecting peoples lives

>>8415474
>emotionally upset
That's what brainwashing does to you.

>>8415475
Muh father was a coal worker! Muh grandfather was a coal worker! Muh jobs! Muh tradition! Muh jobs!

As if anyone actually wants to be a fucking coal miner. Things change, move on. Even more inane is that we have enough resources to sustain everyone, but we waste the majority of it. "Muh jobs!" "Make more jobs!" is inherently moronic and borders on infantile. That's like saying make more small streams while ignoring that it all returns the ocean eventually anyway. Do people seriously look at most employees working at eg Wal-Mart, being sustained by food stamps or welfare outright, which is paid for by tax payers, then tur ning around and shopping at wal-mart or other large stores, and not realize this process of gradual wealth consolidation?

Seriously, how retarded do you have to be?

>>8415474
Sorry Nancy, but not everyone aspires to be a trans. You are welcome to cut yours up though-perhaps you can cook your junk and serve it to some paying customers, like the Japanese guy did a few years ago.

>>8415479
I don't feel, and it feels great.

>>8415483
Nah.

File: 1458667175197.jpg (18KB, 400x289px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x289px

>>8414559
>>8414571
Yes.

>>8414555
YOu dont deserve thoses

File: O.jpg (109KB, 1024x710px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1024x710px

>>8415474
>>8415484
>>8415491
Great contribution to thread! Your well reasoned arguments really convinced me to go Chicken Little over this impending doom.

I literally do not care

>>8415501
Glad to hear you've succumbed to reason. The spread of ideas and beliefs can be modeled the same way as disease.

You've contracted the correct disease. Eventually it will blossom into a viable overall condition. Your state has been net improved.

You're welcome.

>>8414469
oh yeah well if it was so great why couldn't it survive a little environmental change huh?
good riddance tbqh

The fucking idiot writer at that Limey rag failed to mention it's 20 percent dead, a bad situation but not totally dead. Imbeciles like that do nothing for their cause, but further convince people that the whole climate change thing is a big scam.

>>8415512
This is why you should never satisfy your learning with blogs. Everyone should be forced to learn how to research scientific articles in schools for this very reason.

>>8415511
Literally me in like 50 years tbqh, good riddance human species.

>>8415280

Way to miss the point completely

>>8415412
>the economic downturns caused by regulation and phasing out coal caused more instability than any imaginary effects of climate change.
That's bullshit.

>If you blame all weather effects on climate change as you nutheads do, even then it's not comparable.
You realise that the voices in your head don't count as climatologists, right?
Stop making up shit and then attributing it to people you disagree with. It's just lying.

>low IQ detected
Wow, I'm impressed.

>Nice strawman.
It's not a strawman. You explicitly listed fusion power as one of the technologies we would have before climate change because a problem. Climate change already is a problem, and we don't have fusion plants. Duh.

>I won't respond to your post because it's mostly shit and not actually reasoned.
You did though?

>>8415471
>Carbon emissions have staved off the advent of a new ice age which is pretty fucking good news for humans.
That's like justifying setting yourself on fire because it was a slightly cool afternoon.

>High water etc. is tough for some, but the ice would have fucked everyone.
The interglacial is going to be around for thousands of years. What the fuck are you on about?

>Nature pays the price, but so it goes...the manifest destiny of man to attain eternal life and knowledge
Go away.

>>8415475
Hitting the carbon goals that global warming nuts want to hit means a drastic reduction in world GDP.

It's not just America either.

>>8415567
Low IQ post detected.

>global warming is already a problem
completely bullshit

Let's do the comparison. The benefits of using fossil fuels vs the CURRENT global warming problems. Which would you prefer? It's an easy fucking answer. Your entire point is shit. Fossil fuels have greatly aided humanity and the current cost of global warming are minimal.

Using the "current" costs of global warming in your argument is just extremely stupid. You are basically a fucking idiot with a shit brain.

>>8415567
Actually upon contemplation.

The best question I can ask you to show your ignorance and shit brains is simple: List some geoengineering technologies that can reverse carbon concentrations or cool the earth. Now describe their costs and if or when you think they would ever be able to reverse climate change.

>>8416481
>The benefits of sex without a condom vs. the CURRENT problems of having sex without a condom. Which would you prefer?
>Obviously the former since the costs of having a child and/or the debilitating effects of STDs only happen in the future, which is like... not even CURRENT.

>>8416497
It's a shit argument

>hurrr you can't use the example of future technologies because climate change is happening NOW

It's basically confirmation bias to the power of 1000

Let me set up the variables the same way climate nuts do.

1. Climate won't change in the future
2. Technology will continue exponentially advancing

Under these criteria, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Case closed obviously since I get to arbitrarily rule out random variables and their trajectories because I feel like it.

File: SolarUpdraftTowerRenewableEnergy_Diagram1b.png (185KB, 1024x750px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1024x750px

>>8416481
There are solutions which have existed for decades to replace fossil fuels in all but a few cases such as street paving and pharmaceuticals. We simply refuse to use them because it won't keep the current wealthy elite wealthy.

For the price of the 2008 bailout we could have built solar updraft towers for the entire United States completely ending our reliance on foreign oil and we know they work. But no people just want to keep oil billionaires billionaires.

>>8416523
/x/ post.

The problem with solar or renewable energy is that the price keeps dropping. So it's very reasonable to wait to begin spending on it.

Lotta arrogant undergrads in this thread.

File: Heronbleachingsml.jpg (3MB, 2880x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x1920px

World wide coral bleaching is going on, yet you still don't believe we are destroying the planet. Why?

>>8416582
survival of the fittest

>>8416481
>Let's do the comparison. The benefits of using fossil fuels vs the CURRENT global warming problems.
Let's not, because that's a stupid comparison.
To begin with, nobody is advocating simply dropping fossil fuels completely without replacing them with something roughly equivalent first. If you want an analogy - you're asking me to compare the health effects of living off McDonald's vs the benefits of having something to eat.

>>8416496
>List some geoengineering technologies that can reverse carbon concentrations or cool the earth. Now describe their costs and if or when you think they would ever be able to reverse climate change.
None of them "reverse climate change". They either offset emissions or mitigate the symptoms. Either way, until we actually stop raising atmospheric CO2 levels they can't be more than a stopgap.

>>8416530
>The problem with solar or renewable energy is that the price keeps dropping. So it's very reasonable to wait to begin spending on it.
I believe the price is dropping slower than the expected output of an installation. So no, buying panels today is generally justifiable. I could be wrong, though - I've not actually done the numbers.

>>8414469
That's funny, I'm pretty sure the other day I went there to go murder some fish it was still kicking. What went wrong in one day?

>>8416598
>survival of the fittest

Yeah, and if we fuck up the environment such that critical species are selected out, we die. Dumbass.

>>8417088
Survival of the fittest.
:^)

(The underground cities built into various mountain ranges won't last long either. They'll fizzle out long before the Earth is capable of re-awakening)

>When stressful factors, particularly the warming up of ocean waters because of climate change, take effect

shill site, closed

>>8417092
I agree it's fucking blog shit, but warming of ocean waters is actually happening. Thermal expansion of oceans is already taking effect in significantly observable amounts.

>>8415119
Single species have fucked up the earth before. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's ducking okay. Sheets of alge across the ocean have caused several ice ages alone. Gets warm enough for them, they make it cold through biological processes happening trillions of times over, they die, the process restarts. except I'd rather humans not die off mostly before things get better. The difference is that we can see what we're doing, other animals can't.

>>8417110
>The difference is that we can see what we're doing, other animals can't.
>Implying
I used to think this as well, but no longer have such a rigid definition of awareness. If a large and complex species cannot collectively act on its knowledge, it is just as deficient as a clump of algae, and mechanically, the matter is just as simply described.

Too bad. Our hierarchical and tribal nature has always allowed the weak and ignorant to drag us down. Drag down those that are trying to rise. Guess we're just another failure for the pile.

desu if hitler had won it would probably still be there.

>>8417124
I'm not a fan of Hitler by any means but to say that he'd have fucked the global economy up so bad we'd revert to a pre-industrial tier society is pushing it.

>>8417124
Blame the pilot who screwed up and dropped their magnetic mine on the shore, without arming it.

The plan was to bring the British to their knees and begin starving them into submission, without firing a single shot. Had they not had an intact mine to reverse engineer, it probably would have worked.

Having them out of the war would have rendered mopping up the French trivial. Eastern European countries would have still been difficult. The Russian fronts would have been different. The dynamic in the pacific fronts would have been different.

Who knows. It really is amazing what one relatively small country did in such a short amount of time. I almost feel like they deserved to win, if you ignore all the big picture stuff.

>>8415284
>We will essentially have immortality?
When, Anon? Give me a year of your prediction so I can chill for an eternity with muh waifu.

>>8417156
Ray Kurzweil thinks it will happen within decades. He's very smart, but unrealistic. Not enough is known about the brain to make one an immortal cyborg, but gerontology may extend biological lifespan vastly very soon (c.f. Methuselah Mouse prize etc.).

REEFER MADNESS

>>8417389
Yeah a lot of people are looking into extending the biological lifespan from Harvard who made cells on mice younger and gave them cancer, to Google's Calico, and SENS people.

It would be interesting to see Kurzweil's form of immortality happen within decades.

>>8415280
>Global Warming is not going to create a cataclysmic event that destroys all life on earth
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>8417078
This story made it to the front page of reddit. I'm sorry to inform you but the reef is dead.

>>8417492
You should actually watch the video you linked, I have several times. He never says it will destroy all life on Earth. Humans will face a massive decline in population but the rich will probably survive just fine. You will not find any scientific articles claiming that climate change will cease all life on Earth either because extremophiles and life disconnected from the atmosphere still exist. Those organisms will still be able to evolve and eventually recolonize the planet.

>>8417505
>He never says it will destroy all life on Earth.

Nobody ever does you mongoloid.

>>8417650
>calls me a mongoloid for calling out someone's implication that climate change will destroy all life on earth with the statement that nobody ever says climate change will destroy all life on Earth
I think we have a strong case for Dunning–Kruger here.

>>8417660
>omeone's implication that climate change will destroy all life on earth

Except nobody implied that anywhere you illiterate chode.

>>8417713
see
>>8417492
>>Global Warming is not going to create a cataclysmic event that destroys all life on earth
That is an implication that global warming will create a cataclysmic event that destroys all life on earth. You do know how greentexting works right?

>>8417717
>You do know how greentexting works right?

Yeah, you type > and it makes text green.

>mfw the science board is actually denying climate change
This place is cancer.

>>8417785
We're contaminated with a /pol/ spill larger than the BP oil spill. We'll probably get back to regular /sci/ after the US election is over and /pol/ gets fucked so hard they'll need years to recover.

>>8417788
Kek confirms it. Make /sci/ great again Anon.

>>8417785
No on a serious note the quality of /sci/ threads have dropped and can be contributed to /pol/. I can't tell you how many IQ threads over race that have been popping up, along with some irrelevant stuff.

Like >>8417788 said when the election is finally over things will go back to normal.

>>8414535
Arent we all

File: 1476646292150.png (1MB, 1476x984px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1476x984px

>>8417788
>/sci/ will go back to normal once Trump loses and /pol/ fucks off back to rebbit
>tfw Hillary is going to be the one to make /sci/ great again
wew lad

>>8417389
Ray Kurzweil better motherfucking be right about immortality and waifus.

He could be humanity's greatest Called It, man if he wins.

>>8417788
>>8417874
>>8418121
pls no

I need Trump to win so my red as fuck state gets more research funding

>>8419506
Research funding for what exactly? Current American republicans are as anti-science as you can get. It's a real shame they are because being conservative doesn't mean you have to be idiotic.

>>8419509
>Current American republicans are as anti-science as you can get.
What a stupid fucking meme this is
Even negro science man said this is stupid

File: scientific-consensus.png (1MB, 949x880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 949x880px

>>8419561
Guess which of these are related to the republican party compared to which are related to the democrat party.

Earth Science student here. For those of you who deny man made climate change can you please explain the following details.

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/18/371438087/arctic-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-world-average

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/09/vertical-human-fingerprint-found-in-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080530.htm

I am genuinely curious how climate change skeptics answer those problems that challenge their beliefs. Or are you simply ignorant of them?

>>8419567
gmos and vaccines are democrats
evolution and climate change are republicans

>>8417785
It's not denying it. It's fucking obvious carbon concentrations increase when you move them from storage into the active ecosystem.

It's what this means and the positives or negatives of how you deal with it.

If you have a scratch on your arm the best move is not always to amputate the arm.

>>8419571
No one cares.

>The earth is getting slightly warmer
This means we have more energy available from the sun. Which is a good thing for human society.

INB4 you are too low IQ to even understand human momentum as described by Nikola Tesla.

Climate change is basically unimportant compared to most everything else. So now that you know climate change is "Real" what is your solution?

At best you would propose more funding for solar power research or some other bullshit. Again, not anything new to the world.

It's basically a low IQ trap. You want to be "smart" by saying it exists! But the solutions are naturally occurring due to general technological progress, aka solar power reductions in cost. Whereas the problems are not that bad and a net positive for humanity.

>>8419583
The correct answer is:
GMOs are democrats.
Evolution, climate change, and vaccines are republicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-Y_N6qDPs

>>8419595
should add nuclear power to that list.

I always saw the ant-vaccine movement in california as being pushed by uneducated liberals.

>>8419567
Obama and Democrats still hinder science, aka limiting funding for crispr usages.

It's a lie to say any group is better than the other. Obama put a christfag in charge of NIH.

Why do I give a shit when I'd be dead if that happens?

>>8419599
Agreed nuclear power should be in the list, but as far as I know there's no presidential candidate in America fighting for nuclear power unless Gary Johnson is. Nuclear was completely absent during the second debate even with an energy question asked.

>>8419620
>>8419595
>>8419583
>>8419567
>>8419623

I made a thread just for this topic

would it surprise you that retardation is common to both parties?

>>8419594
>>8419606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY
We're already seeing predictions from this video coming true. Trump wants to fortify the wall, Brexit happened, India built an electric fence to keep Bangladesh out when they're submerged underwater. World war III is imminent, this is happening within your life time.

>>8419638
/x/ is where you belong

You obviously don't understand science if you assign all events as a result of climate change

>>8419654
Right, because saying it's not having any effect at all is so much more scientific. You chose to attack my post because it didn't align with your personal belief system. Where's the proof that it won't have any effect in our lifetime?

>>8419659
Brexit happening is not good evidence of climate change.

>>8414469
>my idealized pretty and static nature is changing
Boo fucking hoo retard.

>>8419666
You're right, it's not evidence of climate change, there's plenty of that already. But it is a direct consequence of climate change https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/

>>8419677
shhh

go back to /x/ or some retarded board for LOW IQ trash.

>>8419702
>IQ
Hi /pol/, I see this is your first day on /sci/. I'm hoping this post is Poe's Law at work.

>>8419567
global warming bullshit isn't science

evolution has nothing to do with ANYTHING

The dems are the ones who always cut spending in non-welfare areas, and impose affirmative action to destroy it.

>>8419735
Which part of global warming do you have issues with? I'm fairly knowledgeable in the field and can probably help you with anything you don't understand, you just need to ask the questions.

>>8419740
assumption of h2o multiplier effect
and treating the earths surface as a radiating black body when its cooled by convection

>>8415280
for fuck's sake it's not warming up it's just that the climate gets more extreme. some parts it grows cold af and some others it gets unstandeably hot.
so we'll end up with floods, tornadoes, etc because of wind currents, damage to the soil and evaporation AND CO2-boosted sun will cause droughts and starvation.
cool job recking Terra you cunt

>>8419752
There has been no evidence of anything like that

>>841975
so let's just not believe it, right?
what about climate change? there has been proof to that, and to how it hurts the ecosystem badly

File: gletscher.jpg (157KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 800x600px

>>8414469
sad

>>8419744
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Proving H2O multiplies the effect.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
Explaining Earth's radiating blackbody effect. You'll have to be more clear about how convection prevents blackbody radiation because that sounds completely made up. If you have a source for it I'd be happy to take a look at it.

>>8419758
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.485.1860&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>8419758
Sorry I thought you meant no evidence of climate change.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236669084_Precipitation_and_its_extremes_in_changed_climates
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a88d/89cdbe8ab8ef0dae4e73e4b77402cebca7b3.pdf
http://www.kewalo.hawaii.edu/docs/richmond/1993Richmond.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490.full
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227091041_Global_Warming_and_Coastal_Erosion
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/science01.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract

Do you need more evidence or are you good?

Oh, and since climate change deniers usually tend to be American here's what you'll be expecting in the upcoming years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/l/5/USA.pdf
If you're from somewhere else here's a list of countries the Met Office has done studies on.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/uk/obs-projections-impacts

>>8417135

>Blame the pilot

Or that asshole Prussian general who thought it was a good idea to pitch the invasion plans to Hitler