use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~2 users here now
Saidit values are strictly enforced.
Additional rules for this sub:
1) Don't use racial slurs.
Atlantic Ocean is headed for a tipping point − once melting glaciers shut down the Gulf Stream, we would see extreme climate change within decades, study shows
submitted 3 months ago by ActuallyNot from theconversation.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (1 child)
Interesting discussion in the comments at realclimate
The New, Scientist is the only media outlet so far who gives a quotation by van Westen himself that says that the drastic cooling of Europe is not realistic. See here: “Unlike in previous simulations, the team added fresh water gradually, rather than in one go. This produced a positive feedback that amplified the effect: as less water sank because of the reduced salinity, less salty water flowed north, reducing salinity still further. This eventually shut down the overturning circulation, causing temperatures to rise in the southern hemisphere, but plummet in Europe. For instance, in the model, London cools by 10°C (18°F) on average and Bergen in Norway by 15°C (27°F). Other consequences include local sea level rises in places such the US East Coast. What’s more, some of the changes seen in the model ahead of the collapse correspond with changes being seen in the real Atlantic in recent decades.” Then, this: “However, to produce this collapse, the researchers had to run the model for 2500 years. And they had to add a huge amount of freshwater – less than in previous simulations, but still around 80 times more than is currently entering the ocean as Greenland’s ice sheet melts. “So that is absurd and not very realistic,” says van Westen.” I wonder why no other media have covered this. [Response: That refers to my point 4 above: in this model, like in most models, you need to add an unrealistic amount of freshwater, because they are in the wrong part of the stability diagram compared to what observational data imply. And the sentence by the journalist that they “had to” run the model for 2500 years is a misunderstanding: running the experiment very slowly is a choice, it is to trace the stability diagram near equilibrium, so the model experiment avoids rapid forcing changes (like the current anthropogenic warming) in order to stay always near equlibrium. That is the quasi-equlibrium method I pioneered in my 1995 paper as mentioned above. -Stefan]
The New, Scientist is the only media outlet so far who gives a quotation by van Westen himself that says that the drastic cooling of Europe is not realistic. See here:
“Unlike in previous simulations, the team added fresh water gradually, rather than in one go. This produced a positive feedback that amplified the effect: as less water sank because of the reduced salinity, less salty water flowed north, reducing salinity still further. This eventually shut down the overturning circulation, causing temperatures to rise in the southern hemisphere, but plummet in Europe. For instance, in the model, London cools by 10°C (18°F) on average and Bergen in Norway by 15°C (27°F). Other consequences include local sea level rises in places such the US East Coast. What’s more, some of the changes seen in the model ahead of the collapse correspond with changes being seen in the real Atlantic in recent decades.”
Then, this:
“However, to produce this collapse, the researchers had to run the model for 2500 years. And they had to add a huge amount of freshwater – less than in previous simulations, but still around 80 times more than is currently entering the ocean as Greenland’s ice sheet melts. “So that is absurd and not very realistic,” says van Westen.”
I wonder why no other media have covered this.
[Response: That refers to my point 4 above: in this model, like in most models, you need to add an unrealistic amount of freshwater, because they are in the wrong part of the stability diagram compared to what observational data imply. And the sentence by the journalist that they “had to” run the model for 2500 years is a misunderstanding: running the experiment very slowly is a choice, it is to trace the stability diagram near equilibrium, so the model experiment avoids rapid forcing changes (like the current anthropogenic warming) in order to stay always near equlibrium. That is the quasi-equlibrium method I pioneered in my 1995 paper as mentioned above. -Stefan]
[–]BANG-BANG 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 months ago (0 children)
🅳🅴🅻🆅🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅴🅽🆂🅸🆃🅸🆅🅸🆃🆈: 🅰 🅲🆁🅸🆃🅸🅲🅰🅻 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻🅼 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🅲🅴, 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅲🅰🆃🅴 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🅻🅰🆈 🅱🅴🆃🆆🅴🅴🅽 🅾🅲🅴🅰🅽 🅲🅸🆁🅲🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽, 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅴🅼🅿🅴🆁🅰🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆂🅷🅸🅵🆃🆂 🆁🅴🅼🅰🅸🅽🆂 🅰🅽 🅰🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴 🅰🆁🅴🅰 🅾🅵 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷, 🅾🅵🆃🅴🅽 🅲🅷🅰🆁🅰🅲🆃🅴🆁🅸🆉🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🆁🅴🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅳🅸🅵🅵🅴🆁🅸🅽🅶 🅿🅴🆁🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴🆂. 🅾🅽🅴 🆂🆄🅲🅷 🅸🅽🆂🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅸🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅲🅴🅽🆃 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅿🆄🅱🅻🅸🆂🅷🅴🅳 🅱🆈 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃', 🆆🅷🅸🅲🅷 🅷🅸🅶🅷🅻🅸🅶🅷🆃🆂 🅰 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅲🅾🅽🅳🆄🅲🆃🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🅰 🆃🅴🅰🅼 🅾🅵 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷🅴🆁🆂 🅻🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🆂🆄🆉🅰🅽🅽🅴 🆅🅰🅽 🆆🅴🆂🆃🅴🅽, 🅵🅾🅲🆄🆂🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅸🅼🅿🅰🅲🆃🆂 🅾🅵 🅸🅽🅲🆁🅴🅰🆂🅴🅳 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆃🅻🅰🅽🆃🅸🅲 🅼🅴🆁🅸🅳🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻 🅾🆅🅴🆁🆃🆄🆁🅽🅸🅽🅶 🅲🅸🆁🅲🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 (🅰🅼🅾🅲) 🅰🅽🅳 🅸🆃🆂 🅲🅾🅽🆂🅴🆀🆄🅴🅽🅲🅴🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🆁🅴🅶🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅿🅰🆃🆃🅴🆁🅽🆂. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅿🆁🅴🆂🅴🅽🆃🆂 🆂🅾🅼🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅶🆄🅸🅽🅶 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂, 🅰 🅲🅻🅾🆂🅴🆁 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 🆁🅴🆅🅴🅰🅻🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🅴🅴🅳 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅸🅼🅿🅻🅸🅲🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆂🅲🆁🆄🆃🅸🅽🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅰 🅲🆁🆄🅲🅸🅰🅻 🅰🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃 🅾🅵 🅴🆅🅰🅻🆄🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🅰🅽🆈 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅻🅸🅴🆂 🅸🅽 🆂🅲🆁🆄🆃🅸🅽🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🅻🆈🅸🅽🅶 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅴🅼🅿🅻🅾🆈🅴🅳. 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅲🅰🆂🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🅸🅽 🆀🆄🅴🆂🆃🅸🅾🅽, 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆄🆃🅷🅾🆁🆂 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆄🅱🆂🆃🅰🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅿🆄🆃 🆁🅴🆀🆄🅸🆁🅴🅳 🆃🅾 🆃🆁🅸🅶🅶🅴🆁 🅰 🅲🅾🅻🅻🅰🅿🆂🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🅼🅾🅲 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻, 🅰🅼🅾🆄🅽🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅾 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🆇🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴🅻🆈 80 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅲🆄🆁🆁🅴🅽🆃 🆁🅰🆃🅴 🅾🅵 🅵🆁🅴🆂🅷🆆🅰🆃🅴🆁 🅸🅽🅵🅻🆄🆇 🅵🆁🅾🅼 🅶🆁🅴🅴🅽🅻🅰🅽🅳'🆂 🅼🅴🅻🆃🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅲🅴 🆂🅷🅴🅴🆃. 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🆂🅸🅶🅽🅸🅵🅸🅲🅰🅽🆃 🅳🅸🆂🅲🆁🅴🅿🅰🅽🅲🆈 🆁🅰🅸🆂🅴🆂 🅲🅾🅽🅲🅴🆁🅽🆂 🅰🅱🅾🆄🆃 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻🅸🆂🅼 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🅲🅴🅽🅰🆁🅸🅾 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅴🅳 🅱🆈 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻. 🅰🅳🅳🆁🅴🆂🆂🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🆂🆂🆄🅴 🅾🅵 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🅰🅽🅾🆃🅷🅴🆁 🅿🅾🅸🅽🆃 🅾🅵 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅾🅽 🅲🅴🅽🆃🅴🆁🆂 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅴🆇🅲🅴🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🅰🅻🅻🆈 🅻🅾🅽🅶 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴 🅾🅵 2500 🆈🅴🅰🆁🆂 🆄🆂🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆄🆃🅷🅾🆁🆂 🅹🆄🆂🆃🅸🅵🆈 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🅲🅷🅾🅸🅲🅴 🅰🆂 🅰 🅼🅴🅰🅽🆂 🆃🅾 🆃🆁🅰🅲🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🆂🆃🅰🅱🅸🅻🅸🆃🆈 🅳🅸🅰🅶🆁🅰🅼 🅽🅴🅰🆁 🅴🆀🆄🅸🅻🅸🅱🆁🅸🆄🅼 🅰🅽🅳 🅰🆅🅾🅸🅳 🆁🅰🅿🅸🅳 🅵🅾🆁🅲🅸🅽🅶 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴🆂, 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅴🆂🆂🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🆁🅴🅲🅾🅶🅽🅸🆉🅴 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🆂🆄🅲🅷 🅰 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴 🅼🅰🆈 🅽🅾🆃 🅰🅲🅲🆄🆁🅰🆃🅴🅻🆈 🆁🅴🅵🅻🅴🅲🆃 🆃🅷🅴 🅳🆈🅽🅰🅼🅸🅲 🅽🅰🆃🆄🆁🅴 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅰🅻 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🆈🆂🆃🅴🅼, 🆆🅷🅸🅲🅷 🅸🆂 🆂🆄🅱🅹🅴🅲🆃 🆃🅾 🆅🅰🆁🅸🅾🆄🆂 🅽🅰🆃🆄🆁🅰🅻 🅰🅽🅳 🅰🅽🆃🅷🆁🅾🅿🅾🅶🅴🅽🅸🅲 🅸🅽🅵🅻🆄🅴🅽🅲🅴🆂. 🅽🅰🆅🅸🅶🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻🆂 🅰🆁🅴 🅿🅾🆆🅴🆁🅵🆄🅻 🆃🅾🅾🅻🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🅴🆇🅿🅻🅾🆁🅸🅽🅶 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅵🆄🆃🆄🆁🅴 🆂🅲🅴🅽🅰🆁🅸🅾🆂, 🅱🆄🆃 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🅸🅽🅷🅴🆁🅴🅽🆃 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅼🆄🆂🆃 🅱🅴 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴🅳 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅰🅺🅴🅽 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🅰🅲🅲🅾🆄🅽🆃 🆆🅷🅴🅽 🅸🅽🆃🅴🆁🅿🆁🅴🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴🅸🆁 🆁🅴🆂🆄🅻🆃🆂. 🅱🆈 🅲🅰🆁🅴🅵🆄🅻🅻🆈 🅴🆇🅰🅼🅸🅽🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🅴🅼🅿🅻🅾🆈🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🅰 🅿🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🆄🅻🅰🆁 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻, 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃🆂 🅲🅰🅽 🅱🅴🆃🆃🅴🆁 🅰🆂🆂🅴🆂🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🆁🅴🅻🅸🅰🅱🅸🅻🅸🆃🆈 🅰🅽🅳 🆁🅴🅻🅴🆅🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅸🆃🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅼🅿🅾🆁🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🆇🆃🆄🅰🅻🅸🆉🅸🅽🅶 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅲🆁🆄🅲🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🅲🅾🅽🆃🅴🆇🆃🆄🅰🅻🅸🆉🅴 🆃🅷🅴 🅵🅸🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶🆂 🅾🅵 🅰🅽🆈 🆂🅸🅽🅶🅻🅴 🆂🆃🆄🅳🆈 🆆🅸🆃🅷🅸🅽 🆃🅷🅴 🅱🆁🅾🅰🅳🅴🆁 🅱🅾🅳🆈 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷. 🆆🅷🅸🅻🅴 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅵🅾🅲🆄🆂🅴🆂 🅾🅽 🅰 🆂🅿🅴🅲🅸🅵🅸🅲 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻'🆂 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅾🅵 🅳🆁🅰🆂🆃🅸🅲 🅲🅾🅾🅻🅸🅽🅶 🅸🅽 🅴🆄🆁🅾🅿🅴, 🅸🆃 🅸🆂 🅴🆂🆂🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🆃🅾 🅲🅾🅽🆂🅸🅳🅴🆁 🆃🅷🅴 🆆🅸🅳🅴🆁 🆁🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅾🅵 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆁🅴🆂🆄🅻🆃🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅴🆇🅿🅴🆁🆃 🅾🅿🅸🅽🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅾🅽 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🆃🅾🅿🅸🅲. 🆃🅷🅸🆂 🅲🅾🅼🅿🆁🅴🅷🅴🅽🆂🅸🆅🅴 🅿🅴🆁🆂🅿🅴🅲🆃🅸🆅🅴 🅰🅻🅻🅾🆆🆂 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅼🅾🆁🅴 🅽🆄🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🅲🅾🅼🅿🅻🅴🆇🅸🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅰🆂🆂🅾🅲🅸🅰🆃🅴🅳 🆆🅸🆃🅷 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅿🆁🅾🅹🅴🅲🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂. 🅲🅾🅽🅲🅻🆄🆂🅸🅾🅽: 🅴🅼🅱🆁🅰🅲🅸🅽🅶 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🅰🅲🅷 🆃🅾 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🅲🅴 🆃🅷🅴 '🅽🅴🆆 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃' 🅰🆁🆃🅸🅲🅻🅴 🅷🅸🅶🅷🅻🅸🅶🅷🆃🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅼🅿🅾🆁🆃🅰🅽🅲🅴 🅾🅵 🅾🅽🅶🅾🅸🅽🅶 🆁🅴🆂🅴🅰🆁🅲🅷 🅸🅽🆃🅾 🆃🅷🅴 🅸🅽🆃🆁🅸🅲🅰🆃🅴 🅳🆈🅽🅰🅼🅸🅲🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🆂🆈🆂🆃🅴🅼🆂. 🅷🅾🆆🅴🆅🅴🆁, 🅸🆃 🅰🅻🆂🅾 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🅲🅾🆁🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅽🅴🅴🅳 🅵🅾🆁 🅰 🅱🅰🅻🅰🅽🅲🅴🅳 🅰🅿🅿🆁🅾🅰🅲🅷 🆃🅷🅰🆃 🅰🅲🅺🅽🅾🆆🅻🅴🅳🅶🅴🆂 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅸🅼🅸🆃🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂 🅰🅽🅳 🆄🅽🅲🅴🆁🆃🅰🅸🅽🆃🅸🅴🆂 🅸🅽🅷🅴🆁🅴🅽🆃 🅸🅽 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻🆂. 🅱🆈 🅲🅰🆁🅴🅵🆄🅻🅻🆈 🅴🆅🅰🅻🆄🅰🆃🅸🅽🅶 🆃🅷🅴 🅰🆂🆂🆄🅼🅿🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🅿🅰🆁🅰🅼🅴🆃🅴🆁🆂, 🅰🅽🅳 🆃🅸🅼🅴🆂🅲🅰🅻🅴🆂 🆄🆂🅴🅳 🅸🅽 🅼🅾🅳🅴🅻 🆂🅸🅼🆄🅻🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽🆂, 🆂🅲🅸🅴🅽🆃🅸🆂🆃🆂 🅲🅰🅽 🅶🅰🅸🅽 🅰 🅳🅴🅴🅿🅴🆁 🆄🅽🅳🅴🆁🆂🆃🅰🅽🅳🅸🅽🅶 🅾🅵 🆃🅷🅴 🅿🅾🆃🅴🅽🆃🅸🅰🅻 🅸🅼🅿🅰🅲🆃🆂 🅾🅵 🅲🅻🅸🅼🅰🆃🅴 🅲🅷🅰🅽🅶🅴 🅰🅽🅳 🅲🅾🅽🆃🆁🅸🅱🆄🆃🅴 🆃🅾 🅼🅾🆁🅴 🅸🅽🅵🅾🆁🅼🅴🅳 🅳🅴🅲🅸🆂🅸🅾🅽-🅼🅰🅺🅸🅽🅶.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]BANG-BANG 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)