𧔠Climate models can't predict the climate to the upside or to the downside.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:18:56 UTC No. 16444747
There was a retard here, maybe a half year ago, who disagreed with me about this. My argument was that pockets of local climate change necessarily induce chaos into any prëexisting model.
The retard said no! No! I'm not a retard!
Now that the deprecation of carbon sinks proves me right, and proves you wrongâbecause you're fucking retardedâare you willing to come back here and admit you were ignorant and dumb?
Or will you keep pretending not to be both ignorant and dumb, and fucking uselessly retarded?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:50:19 UTC No. 16444787
>>16444747
Imagine seething so fucking hard you come back 6 months later to claim victory. Fucking lmao, get of the internet bro, this behavior isn't healthy.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:55:30 UTC No. 16444794
>>16444787
Thank you.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:37:56 UTC No. 16444857
>>16444787
No, I mean you literally can't model the climate because you will always have both pockets and blankets of climate that only affect a contained system until suddenly there's a breaking point and now the local spills over into the global. There is no such thing as a global climate model that isn't complete ex anus bullshit.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:52:52 UTC No. 16444883
>>16444857
Retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:25:09 UTC No. 16444929
>>16444883
Retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:30:37 UTC No. 16444940
>>16444747
This is impressive only because you are trying to dab up no cap. Learn from your mistake and screen it retard.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:33:49 UTC No. 16444945
>>16444940
I literally called the flaw in climate models 6 months ago and climate model shills are now eating my dick.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:14:36 UTC No. 16446547
>>16444945
Will your dick be extinct in 10 years?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:11:41 UTC No. 16446607
>>16444945
You mean the flaw in your understanding.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:51:32 UTC No. 16446656
>>16446607
It's not my flaw, I'm just pointing it out. Explain how the overriding of carbon sinks was well modeled.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:59:40 UTC No. 16446663
>>16444747
Get help. Let it go. Move on.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:11:46 UTC No. 16446732
>>16446663
Would you let it go if you were mathematically right in the face of abject perennial retardation?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:18:45 UTC No. 16447169
>>16446656
>It's not that I don't understand the topic! It's that every researcher is wrong!
Meds.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:33:16 UTC No. 16447290
>>16447169
Sure thing retard. Every researcher now agrees with me.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:59:44 UTC No. 16447485
>>16447290
>Nooo! It's not that I don't understand the topic, I understand the topic perfectly and every researcher agrees with me! Just look at this pop-sci article from the Guardian that definitely confirms my opinion and definitely doesn't say anything different!
Meds.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:14:35 UTC No. 16447524
>>16447485
>None of these models have factored in losses such as the wildfires in Canada last year that amounted to six months of US fossil emissions
Andrew Watson, University of Exeter
>âClimate scientists [are] worried about climate change not because of the things that are in the models but the knowledge that the models are missing certain things.â
>âWeâre seeing cracks in the resilience of the Earthâs systems. Weâre seeing massive cracks on land â terrestrial ecosystems are losing their carbon store and carbon uptake capacity, but the oceans are also showing signs of instability,â Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told an event at New York Climate Week in September.
>âWe have been lulled â we cannot see the crisisâ
>'None of the models have factored this in.'
You really want to die on this hill, retard?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:36:23 UTC No. 16447882
>>16447524
>six months
The flaw is in your understanding. Not in the models.
>You really want to die on this hill, retard?
Irony.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:39:54 UTC No. 16447885
>>16447882
You're a literal retard and the consensus of climate scientists agrees that you're a fucking retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:45:30 UTC No. 16449538
>>16447169
>>16447485
Hello meds retard.