OK, just first up, a couple of references and resources. So after my talk on Monday, I realized that the theoretical ideas behind resonance and all of these types of things were sudden warments. I gave you the literature, but I won't lie. It is a non-trivial literature, mathematically. And often, those authors are very good at doing the clever math, but perhaps not so great at translating that into physics. So in this paper of mine that I've cited, there are three sections that if you want background on kind of the theory, but you want it written in English or more simple language, the introduction in those two sections in 4A and 4B will give you background that really translates. The paper is sort of long, but the reason why it's long is because I tried to translate the theory into physics. So you might find that helpful if you're interested. Second, I know a lot of the talks have been making use of like RMM and all those various MJO indices. And I just wanted to point out that in my section at NOAA Ezraal, we have an MJO indices web page. And that has links to Matt Wheeler's website that will give you time series of RMM. But in addition, no one has mentioned the OMI index. And that is a index that's maintained locally at NOAA. And you can get time series of that there. And I should just point out that in some sense, the way to think about those two indices is RMM takes circulation and OLR. But for the most part, it's really just a circulation indices. It's not to say that it's not related to OLR. But if you remove OLR from RMM and you correlate it with and without OLR, it's correlated at like 0.9. So it's really a circulation indices. The OMI, on the other hand, is purely based on OLR. So if you want to look at those two types of things that circulation OLR indices, this is a great resource. And then the paper by George Coladas, I put the citation for that down there. So that might be useful to some of you. That's got nothing to do with my talk. I don't work on the MJL, but here you go. OK, so folks, my talk will be on stress for troposphere communication, and in particular, in the context of extra tropical tropical communication and sudden warmings. So I'm just going to briefly go into a little bit of the mechanistic understanding, which has been around for 30 years, but is still poor. But I'll try to give you an overview of that. And then I will talk about predictability, probabilistic predictability, not deterministic like in my previous talk in the context of, and so, QBO and sudden warmings. OK, so most of the talks that we've heard, OK, all of the talks, have focused on things like tropical SSTs and the tropospheric teleconnection pathway. So that's like, say, the jet stream response, and then you get a raw speed response and those types of things, all within the troposphere. However, there's also what is called the stratospheric pathway. And kind of a broad leeway to think about this is like, so say you have an El Nino going on and that SST anomaly drives stationary planetary wave response. And that wave response goes into the stratosphere and it affects the stratospheric polar vortex as opposed to the tropospheric vortex. And that signal goes up, does something to the stratospheric polar vortex, and then that signal comes back down. So that's kind of in a very broad sense, a two-way process. First is you get the signal that goes up, but then you've got to communicate it back downwards to the trouble pause. And I've listed out a set of ideas that are kind of theoretical constructs that have proposed how this might work. I won't lie to you. There isn't a smoking gun at this point. I'm going to go through one of them that I find to be more compelling, but you shouldn't forget that all of these exist. That response then is amplified. And I'll kind of show in the next slide how that might work. But essentially, you imprint something on the trouble pause. And then there's a synoptic eddy feedback that amplifies that response. OK, so I'm going to focus on just so you can get an idea of how this might work on the remote response to the stratospheric PV anomalies. So I just wrote the perturbation QG PV equation and kind of this middle piece. You know, it's got all these geometric terms and whatever, and it looks sort of complicated maybe. But really, you could just distill it down to the fact that it's a three-dimensional elliptic operator. And anybody, I don't know if anyone's worked on partial differential equation theory, but an elliptic operator, this is a linear operator, what it means is when you invert that. Once you have the PV, you can invert that to get things like geopotential and the winds and things like that. And that invertibility is non-local. So what that means is if I have a PV anomaly in the stratosphere or the troposphere, I invert that. There's a wind and geopotential response that is a broad field response, and it's not just at that point. It's also a linear operator, so we can do what's called piecewise PV inversion. So this is from a paper. I think I gave the wrong, no, that's the right reference. I was thinking that was the black paper. Anyway, essentially what you can do is you can say, OK, well, I'm going to take a PV field, and I'm going to invert it and get a zonal wind profile. So this box right here on the far left, in the upper corner, is a zonal wind profile in latitude and pressure for tropospheric and PV field in its entirety. Then, as I said, it's a linear operator, so we can split that into, OK, let's look at the tropospheric and stratospheric portions of that PV anomaly separately, invert them separately, and then figure out what their implied wind response is due to those two PV anomalies. And what you see is that the tropospheric PV anomaly gives you this wind response that's largely lower most stratosphere down to the surface. And if we invert the stratospheric PV anomaly, we get something that's largest in the stratosphere. But you, again, you see this large scale structure that leads all the way down in the troposphere. And so if you look at that on, say, the 215 hectopascale geopotential in terms of the 215 hectopascale geopotential height anomaly, this is the full field, tropospheric plus stratospheric PV. This is the geopotential that results from the tropospheric portion of the PV inversion. And this bottom piece is the stratospheric PV inversion. So kind of what you can broadly, qualitatively interpret here is something happens in the stratosphere, changes the PV polar vortex strength in the stratosphere. You get this kind of large scale imprint on the upper troposphere. And then the tropospheric part is this higher wave number kind of pattern. And that's the contribution there. There's no causality there, but you just kind of keep in the back of your mind that something happens in the stratosphere. It imprints something on the troposphere, and then there's probably some sort of feedback with tropospheric anomalies. So any of these theories, whether it's, I mentioned, wave reflection, downward control, any of these are you have to take that, translate that polar vortex anomaly in the stratosphere, get it to the tropopause so that you can then alter tropospheric weather. So anything, heat anomaly, anything that's going to alter PV. So drive a planetary wave from anomalously large planetary waves from, say, an El Nino event, drives a stationary planetary wave into the stratosphere, weakens the polar vortex. That's a PV anomaly that's going to then imprint something non-locally. So this left panel is what's called the nominally the dripping paint diagram. And this goes back to Baldwin and Dunkelton in 1999. And what they did was, is they calculated the northern annular mode, which is just, and they did this in the stratosphere, I believe, but it doesn't much matter. Essentially the way to think about this is that when you have the polar vortex, when it's strong, and there's not a lot of wave activity in the stratosphere, the vortex is very broad and strong. There's a lot of wave activity and a lot of wave drag, it slows down the vortex and you get a contracted and weak vortex. And essentially what they did was they composited, this is at lag, plus and minus, for, I forget what the time series, maybe went back to 1979 or the 50s or something like that. The point is, is that they composited 18 week vortex events and 30 strong vortex events. And there's been a lot of discussion this looks like some sort of downward signal propagation. Something starts in the stratosphere, at zero lag and then it bleeds down in the troposphere. There's a lot of argument about whether that's the correct interpretation of that. Yes? Yeah. Because it's extremely low. Yes, that is accurate. And there's, but Dave Thompson and Mark Baldwin recently, not super recently, but wrote a paper on all of these various indices. And if you go into this stratosphere, all those indices, whether it's the NAM, they owe whether you use geo-potential or EOFs or whatever you essentially get, get broadly the same result. And this, this is a recent plot and instead of just weak and strong vortex events, this is for sudden warming events, right? So in a sub, some sudden warming event is just a subset of weak events. It's particularly very strong events, right? So that's when the vortex breaks down and you get a very similar pattern. So if you look at this at, say, various surfaces in the troposphere in terms of mean sea level pressure, surface temperature anomalies or precip anomalies and the hatching shows where things are significant, you see what those patterns, this is 60 days out from a central warming date, right? So sudden warming happens and then 60 days and you integrate and to find out what the anomaly patterns look like and this is what you get. In particular, for a sudden warming, you get a negative NAO pattern. You can see that when you look at these structures. Okay, so those are just kind of the broad basic characteristics of what happens when you strong weak vortex events and sudden warmings. What does that mean in the context of other previously kind of thought of as tropospheric teleconnection patterns? Okay, so I'm gonna show a series of plots from model results, all these model results that I'm gonna show you, they're various. This is Ekken from Max Planck and they're all very long runs, a lot of ensembles and so there's a lot of statistical power in these but they are all model runs. So this is plots in the top row of 500 hectopascal geopotential height anomalies. On the left we have the model predictions and on the right we have error interim and so this is the two months after a sudden warming and what we did some, no, I'm just hearing things, okay. In the two months after a sudden warming you get this negative NAO pattern and that shows up both in model and in error interim and on the bottom panel, what they plotted is El Nino both in the model and for error interim and again you get kind of this similar pattern. Okay, so what happens if you try to separate out the effects of kind of the sudden warming from just pure El Nino? Yes, sudden warming can only happen in DGF so yes, all these plots are, for the stratosphere primarily only has an influence on things in the winter because the Charney-Dresden condition says that you cap wave activity during other parts of the year so you really have a boring stratosphere during summer. So okay, so then they took this and they sliced their data into time periods with El Nino with a sudden warming and time periods of El Nino without a sudden warming and part of the problem with looking at just reanalysis status, by the time you chop it all up, right? You only have a few El Nino cycles, you only have a handful of warmings, by the time you chop it up you do it left with essentially nothing so that's the whole point of trying to do a lot of these simulations with a lot of ensembles to get more statistical power. Now interestingly what happens is we get a, when you look at El Nino with sudden warmings you get this kind of similar pattern that we looked at before, right? And that's not surprising. However, if you look at El Nino without sudden warmings you get a very, very different picture, okay? So what this is and the El Nino with sudden warmings if you notice looks very similar to all sudden warming periods or all El Nino periods. And I think one of the messages they're trying to take away there is that yes, El Nino in the tropospheric pathway gives you something strong but a good portion of that is likely due to the fact that you also have in the data record you have sudden warmings going on during those years and when you collect them all together on aggregate you're seeing a big imprint from the stratosphere and it's not just the troposphere pathway from El Nino. Okay, so what about El Nino versus La Nino? And as I said, when you have a sudden warming it imprints typically a negative NaO pattern and if you take, these are again 500 hectobascale anomalies, height anomalies and the top row is El Nino, the bottom row is La Nino and you have for all years and again these are N-CAM5 simulations you get these kind of opposite pattern for El Nino versus La Nino and if you look at with sudden warming it looks essentially the same for El Nino perhaps a bit stronger and for La Nino it's slightly weaker than the all case and then if you look at the no sudden warming and you subtract the with minus no sudden warming what you see is this identical pattern and that's that imprint of that negative NaO pattern so whether or not you have essentially the way to look at this is I think in a simplified sense is that you have the tropospheric pathway that's going on that El Nino versus La Nino but if you then imprint on top of that a sudden warming you're gonna get the aggregate effect of that tropospheric pathway plus the stratospheric pathway which is a negative NaO effect. Obviously that's a simplified linear way of thinking about this but broadly if you're trying to get a conceptual handle on these things that's maybe the way to look at it. Sagan? No, it's not. La Nino when you find some sudden warming and of course if you pick it up then you see the difference. No, I probably wouldn't interpret it that way. Just here as I said I have a linear and a positive NaO it's clearly different from a linear and not positive NaO the structure is different by definition right? It's also saying what I do here they have to look different by different conditions. Sure. A sudden warming produced negative NaO. That's the, I mean that's the, this is not a, I mean I wouldn't argue that that's a noise imprint of noise. No, but it's just saying that it's not noise. It's just saying okay if I have a negative NaO or a negative NaO then this sudden structure is warming then I get the signal that can be superimposed to a linear and then or not superimposed to a linear that gives me the response. It's just saying that the acceptable atmosphere can have this noise pattern or whatever you want to call it I guess I'm not following. We'll have to, what's that? That's an open, that's sort of an open, yeah well I mean the argument is as I'll show that sudden warmings have a tendency to occur more during both on linear and on linear why that occurs. That's sort of an open question but I mean, sure? Let's talk afterwards. This is, I mean this is at lag so that's unlikely. I don't think the NaO is not causing a warming but all right I'm not going to go through this. I just wanted people to have this reference. It looks at central Pacific versus east Pacific and I'll only know and there's some I guess some more rich behavior depending on how you chop up the data. Okay so that's kind of the broad understanding of and so what about the quasi-venial oscillation? So I'm not sure whether people, how familiar people are with it but broadly the equatorial QBO is an oscillation in wind and up here I've just shown time series and these are easterly versus westerly downward propagating zonal wind anomalies and this is a wave driven effect. Essentially what you have here is if you look, this is height versus latitude and you have generation of Kelvin waves, mixed rock and gravity waves, gravity waves. Those propagate up into the stratosphere and those are differentially filtered dependent on whether it's whether you have easterlies or westerlies and so one spectrum of waves are allowed up during easterlies while the others are capped and they drive one descending branch then when that branch is ascended you switch and the other spectrum of waves are allowed to propagate up and they drive the reversed cycle. So you get this alternating wind anomaly pattern. Now in addition to that over the tropics what that does is this is a zero wind line it essentially takes that zero wind line and ends it in and out in the latitudinal sense. So when you have the way that that's important is broadly speaking you have planetary waves that propagate out of the troposphere into the stratosphere and as you move this zero wind line in and out you constrict that wave activity to stay more towards the pole or allow it to escape more towards the equator. It's a bit more complicated than that but in a very kind of schematic broad sense that's the way to think about it. Okay so what might that look like? So just so that we understand during the westerly phase this line is moved more equator-ward and in the easterly phase the zero wind line moves more towards the pole. So when it moves more towards the pole you kind of hold more wave activity in and if you look at the difference between the superior west minus east this is co-authors mind I prefer to look at the east minus west because the west is sort of like a non-signal because climatologically wave propagate up and they go equator-ward it's really during the east when you're pinching it that you're changing things. Nevertheless this is error interim and error 40 and this is for a very large ensemble of NCARC-CAM-5 runs and you essentially get the same deal and essentially what happens is during cubio-east as I said you kind of constrict things you hold more wave activity in and you get a weaker polar vortex. Okay well what does that look like in terms of sea level pressure so you can see that you get this kind of similar pattern those contours are they're like a half a hexapascal or something like that so it's from my perspective it's kind of shrug meh you know that's not a big effect okay why might I be bringing up the cubio then if it has such a weak if the cubio itself has such a weak surface anomaly well it's because the cubio has the two phases have some preference as far as sudden warments so what this is a plot of here is this is on the vertical axis this is a measure of what is called the Holtman tan effect that breathing in and out is what's called the Holtman tan effect that's due to a paper that was written in 1980 by Jim Holtman and what we're doing here is correlating the strength of that that Holtman tan effect with the frequency of sudden warments and you see that it's very very well correlated down at the bottom what we've done is we've done it for both phases and what you see is during the cubio-west there's essentially a non-significant correlation of 0.35 and during east there's an extremely high correlation right so that's 0.91 and so essentially what this is telling you is that when that zero wind line is very is encroaching strongly poleward you're getting more sudden warments so and as I said that's consistent with the idea that the easterly phase is really a signal and the westerly phase is largely just a weak okay so the cubio is a 28 month oscillation right and that period that's plus or minus a few months this except for this last year where we had disruption of the cubio this looks like this and will continue to look like this barring some sort of catastrophe so it's very predictable so you can imagine that if we know what phase of cubio we're in and we knows probabilistically what that means in terms of sudden warments that might give us some sort of seasonal predictive skill on the NAO provided the NAO doesn't trigger warments or any of the questions notwithstanding what about ENSO so what I've done here is I've taken these are I created tables from two different papers and essentially the takeaway message here is that El Nino and La Nina typically compared to I didn't include neutral I think neutral is like about .6 sudden warments per decade like 6 sudden warments per decade during El Nino and La Nina there's an elevated number of warments it is a open question why that is I should point out that El Nino it has been strongly shown that it generates more wave activity that goes into the stratosphere versus La Nina so as I mentioned the other day it is likely that it is not just a generation of wave activity issue that's driving the sudden warments there's something more subtle about the geometry of the stratospheric polar vortex that's occurring in both La Nina and El Nino why did I put up this second box because you'll notice that the El Nino and La Nina for the top box are largely close in the second set they're farther apart that's because NOAA's SST version 4 dataset is problematic so if you were going to use that for something don't I don't know if they I think they may have put out version 5 in the last few months use that because this version 4 they were trying to do a lot of data correction in the end what it did was it smoothed things and the inter-annual variability is much weaker than it should be and for example a whole bunch of La Nina has just disappeared so I would say that this most recent paper that relies on that dataset is keep that in the back of your mind if you believe that this kind of thing has been in huge ensembles there's been yeah this is data I like data but I didn't do a model yeah so provided models are doing some warmings correctly which depending on the model open question but yes this is a consistent result okay I threw this in here we may have looked at this the other day essentially I just wanted to point out to people that this is a set of nudging experiments and it's just showing enhanced predictability different types of forcing so for example this is another one of these nudging schemes where you nudge sea surface temperatures you nudge the tropics and then you see what kind of skill you get and for example this experiment takes climatological SSTs and this is for DJF and they nudge the tropics so that's why the correlation in the tropics is essentially perfect so really what you want to look at is the extra tropics and you see that when you do that you get a lot of enhanced skill in the extra tropics right if you do the same thing where you take climatological SSTs and you nudge the stratosphere again you get a lot of skill and arguably again you have to ignore the perfect part that you nudge and look at the extra tropics and you know if you look at the two so the takeaway message that a lot of these studies have been looking at and this doesn't even include warmings this is just kind of average behavior so this is just the vortex in the stratosphere being strong and weak with the occasional sudden warming thrown in there so noise wise what does this mean in terms of prediction so this is another series of nudging experiments but this takes a Canadian model and essentially what they did was is they nudged to two types of warmings the displacement and the split and then they did a ton of ensembles where the stratosphere was nudged to that state and then they let the the troposphere be free run and looked at the result so if you look at the daily NAMM to see for JFM for the control and the two types of warmings splits and displacements what you see is as I mentioned towards negative NaO and essentially what you see here is this is the warmings are triggered I guess they were late December here and what you see is in the ensemble mean you get a tendency for there to be a negative NAMM or a negative NaO event however if you look at all those gray lines those are the ensembles so that's your noise so in a probabilistic sense you get something but you have to be careful because there's a lot of noise but that's no different than looking at tropospheric teleconnections if we look at the most recent El Niño that embarrassed all of us at NOAA you had this what was supposed to be a Godzilla El Niño and there was a lot of noise so a lot of the signal that we were expecting to see was in particular the beginning of the season was largely obscured so that's just kind of the nature of probabilistic seasonal forecasting but I think this kind of gives you an idea of looking at the noise versus the signal okay how we doing on let's see what time what time are we okay very good there's nothing I get to talk about stuff that I've actually worked on alright so so far I've talked to you about this stratospheric teleconnection pathway and kind of looked at the difference between that and the tropospheric I kind of subscribe most of these views are predicated on the notion that you have two regions and you take the tropopause and you draw a line through it and depending on your view if you're Nick I'm the stratosphere is a sponge layer that's just absorbing things if you are what's that this is George he just humbly laughs along if you're a stratospheric dynamics the tropopause is a lower boundary condition it's just a noise maker that helps produce variability because no one cares about the troposphere anyway right I don't take that view I really think and I mentioned in my last talk that there were I didn't really talk about his theories but I told you to go read a bunch of Alan O'Neill papers and one of the things that I like about his set of papers is he thinks about sudden warmings in a more vertically deep sense okay so there isn't this this tropopause yes it's a big change in stability and all kinds of other things but these vortex structures are very vertically deep right PD anomalies are very vertically deep so I like to think of these things in a more organic integrated sense and I won't tell you what I mean by that but just let me set the table a little bit here knowing two things and why this might be important so this is a plot from Sardis Muck and Hoskins and essentially all you want to take into account here is if you look at the black dot she just took divergence forcing and he just moved it and you can tell that these are the Rossby responses right so same basic state that you start with but if you just move the divergence forcing you get a very different Rossby response right so where we imply divergence forcing makes a big difference two the basic state also matters here if you take December, February basic state or June, August basic state leave the divergence forcing in an identical place again you get a very different Rossby response right so those are two ingredients that if we alter them basic state or the location of the divergence forcing we're going to get a different tropospheric teleconnection pattern Rossby response alright so you know what are we basically we've been talking about ENSO MJO things like that that cause tropical heating and then there's divergent outflow and we get a Rossby response what might other types of forcing be um this is from a paper from George Pilatus in 98 and essentially at the top level we see PV on the 350 k isentrope and essentially what you're seeing here is he did some regressions what you're seeing is you know waves that are coming they come off the the Asian jet and they propagate out into the pacific basin and they propagate down into the subtropics where they break right so these are these are extra tropical to tropical waves and with that way breaking we get this is the divergence and this is the divergent wind so if we have extra waves to propagate into the subtropics and tropics with it comes comes a divergence forcing okay so where do they occur this is the 350 k isentrope that's about 200 millibars zonal wind and here we see the two jets over Asia and North America and we see easterlies over South America and most of the maritime continent and Ross linear Rossby wave theory tells you that waves are able to propagate where we have so essentially what happens is you have waves that propagate along the southern edge of these two jets where the elasticity due to the pv grading kind of holds them together they propagate out over the ocean and they often then propagate into what are called these westerly ducks and they're called ducks because we have mostly easterlies and then we just have these two openings right and here's a pv back on the 350 k isentropic surface that shows you know kind of what we what you're looking for when you see one of these wave breaking events going on right okay so why are those westerly ducks there you'll see a lot in the literature I'm not gonna go through this deeply but I just wanted to throw it up there this is a this is from an article that Peter Webster wrote in a cool book that was edited by Brian Hoskins and essentially what he talks about there that these westerly ducks are there from you know in the maritime continent you have a lot of precipitation and that causes this mass circulation this Walker Lake circulation that that drives easterlies and that's what he says the reason for that is that's that may be part of it but the fact of the matter is that when you this is what I've taken here is error interim winds and broken it into the rotational and divergent component and this is trim precipitation what you'll end up seeing is that it doesn't quite match up right where you have the maximum in precipitation and you would expect outflow like this the winds actually the other direction right where you would expect the largest part of the mass circulation and you can see that and it's hard to see here but you guys can take a peek at my slides on your own time what you'll see is that the divergent component is part of it but really it's the Rossby response that sets up these ducts you can see that in the rotational wind component alright so what does this all have to do with sudden warmings as I said most when you look at wave breaking it really occurs in these ducts those occur out of the Pacific and the Atlantic while I was reading a paper and there was local station data over India and we were seeing intense gravity wave activity during the sudden warming of 2009 and they were saying well this is from a PV intrusion there's a wave breaking and it's emanating gravity waves and I thought about that and I thought well sudden warmings have a geographic preference right so when you have a split sudden warming those two lobes always end up in the same spot when they break right and there's some sort of geographic locking probably to do with the fact that largely a big component of their forcing is stationary topography and land-sea contrasts so I just thought well is there a systematic connection between sudden warmings and deep extra tropical tropical PV intrusion so the first thing I did was go on a little bit of a fishing expedition and I this is the climatology of wind on the 350K surface and this is the time period before that warming and what you see is that where you normally have easterlies there's this huge new duct south of India that's opened up and I was like oh that's an interesting effect so let's see if we can quantify this for all sudden warmings okay so just to get an idea of I mentioned that I like to be giving these things as very vertically deep vortex events this is the PV field for the split event in 2009 and you can see you know there's you can see this is prior to the event you can see the two low pressure systems this is that the vortex getting stretched into that peanut shape and it's about to rip into two and these would be the two lobes that are being torn apart you can see that this is up in the mid stratosphere this is down at 350K right along the tropopause and this is down all the way at 320K which definitely dives down deeply into the troposphere and what you see is that this wave number 2 structure is really deep you can see it all the way from the upper troposphere all the way into the deep stratosphere so it's I'm not making any sort of causal argument about where the source of this comes but when it does happen you get these very beautiful deep vertical structures okay you'll notice that there are wrapped up of waves breaking into locations so we did some composite building and bootstrapping to try to establish significance of this and what you see is you see these two dipole patterns that occur in those two specific locations and those are really significant so what this means is the dipole pattern what is that well when one of these waves break you have high PV to the north and low PV to the south is you're transporting that wave breaks and you're transporting high PV from the north to the south and low PV to the north right so this is the mixing process and it occurs in two very specific locations so what is the kind of idea that's going on there well as I mentioned before typically these waves that like George Klaus was looking at are synoptic scale waves they're propagating along the Asian jet out over the ocean and into the duct so that would be equivalent to having these small scale waves right on, breaking right along the tropopause well the thing that I thought about is you see this very deep vertical structure and these waves that are breaking in the stratosphere is what Michael McIntyre calls the stratospheric surf zone so these are breaking waves but they're not synoptic waves these are part of the large planetary scale structure now most of the time when the polar vortex is contained to the pole that surf zone wave breaking dynamics is fully in the stratosphere however when you start ripping the vortex apart you start pushing the vortex towards the equator and when you do that this wave breaking that used to be fully contained within the stratosphere starts impinging on the tropopause so it's possible that the aggregate effect of this you have these two lobes moving southward is you cause this bulging in the material pv surface that does two things one is is that in these two regions you've got this very vertically deep large scale planetary wave breaking that is contributing to these anomalies and the other is is that this bowing of the material pv surface you can kind of think of that that's the wave guide the strongest pv grading is where Rossby waves live and so what you're doing is you're warping the wave guide structure for the synoptic waves so the idea here is is that those two dipoles that we see are the function of both vertically deep planetary wave breaking and warping of the ways in which synoptic scale waves propagate and break so we tried to split this into synoptic scale wave breaking by taking a high pass filter and then the large scale low frequency wave breaking by taking a 30 to 120 day filter and what we found is depending on the event and even the daily you know you get a mixture of both so for the 2009 warming what I've done here is this is the low frequency stream function and this is the synoptic stream function and if you look here at the bottom you see this is where we get those two wave breaking centers of action and associated with the pv and if you look at the synoptic scale on the right first you'll notice I've taken these two agents for the synoptic waves and I've imprinted that on here and it'd be really hard to argue that this wave breaking has much to do with the synoptics however if we do the same thing with the low frequency variability we see this nice tilt so we see that that's likely the effect of the large scale wave breaking so kind of the idea here is that these are two different events and this is a vertical cross section of pv climatology but when you have this the colors are pv on 350 and I've taken this dashed white line is pv at a much higher surface so essentially what that's just showing you is showing how vertically stacked and vertically deep this pv anomaly is this wave breaking if we look in the vertical cross section essentially what you see is you can see that these anomalies these are essentially what's going on I'm not going to do this deeply because it may take you some time to see this but essentially what's going on here is this b that is this pv wrapping down and through in the cross section sense and you see this the stratospheric pv is wrapping downwards and inwards around and along a where you're taking low pv air that's this part of the tongue wrapping upward and inwards so essentially what you're looking at here these are modeling results from wave breaking you're seeing the wrapping up of this filament that's vertically deep and it impinges upon the triple pause and that's where a lot of this mixing is coming in it's not always just the low frequencies though here this is a different warming in 1999 again we see organization nice beautiful organization from the low frequency but in this case if we look at the snoptic scales and I've connected the wave train we see this nice beautiful effect from the snoptic waves so this certainly certainly contribute during some of these events well what does this mean what's our currency as I mentioned at the beginning I said it's where you have divergence and it's the basic state that goes on so what I've done here is I've taken the divergence climatology and then I've and it's not showing up very beautifully I've taken the divergence anomalies from climatology or sudden warmings and again where I was showing those PV plots and I showed you the two centers of action we also get divergence anomalies over the Pacific that essentially projects onto what's already there when I showed you that picture from George Pilates that was a regression of climatology right so those wave of breaking they're all the time during sudden warmings you just get that response just gets amplified so it just projects onto what's already there however over the Indian sector to kind of far eastern Europe that is very different from climatology it's totally different sign on top of that if we look at the wind pattern we see that during sudden warmings when you warp that PV right I talked about the invertibility of PV you can recover the winds from that we also get strong deformations in what the wind looks like so the two ingredients that I talked about that are important for tropospheric teleconnections the basic state and the divergence patterns both of those are altered so that's kind of my takeaway from that and do we have like 30 seconds? no yeah okay very good I just wanted to make the point here that it's important that vertical how vertically deep the sudden warming event is what I've shown here are two pictures one is for a February 2010 major sudden stratospheric warming so it met the definition and this is PV on 850 and you can see this is instead of a split event this is just a wave number one displacement so this is when you just push the vortex up and if you recall from my previous talk I said that split sudden warmings are very very very very very very deep and displacements have a first bare clinic structure which means that the largest amplitude of the perturbation is high in the stratosphere and it decays as you go down January 2012 was a minor warming doesn't show up in any of the data records it's certainly it's hard to argue that it looks any different than in the major sudden warming so what does it mean in terms of what's going on down on the tropopause if we look at the low frequency stream function for the major sudden stratospheric warming event this is the low frequency stream function if I showed you climatology you wouldn't be able to tell the difference because it's identical the synoptic scale stream function you'll notice that these the way breaking that I showed before extends down to say 10 way deeply here this is synoptic scale way breaking and it's more kind of climatological because there's no low frequency variability to warp the PD however if we look at the minor warming we see now there's this strong imprint on the low frequency variability and with that we see this nice these PD events are reaching down all the way to the equator and again it's a function of both the low frequency and the warped synoptic scale variability so the important part here is is that I know a lot of studies and a lot of these nudging studies and things like that they try to correlate the warming itself and they look at like 10 hectopascals but that's pretty far up in the stratosphere the point is is you somehow need to get an anomaly that's down in the lowermost stratosphere to imprint something on the tropopause and that PV invertibility principle that I showed you when you invert that to get the wind in the geopotential and I said it's an elliptic operator that's non-local changes in geopotential drop-off at I think 1 over r and changes in wind I think are 1 over r squared from the distance from the maximum of that PV anomaly so that means if you have a big PV anomaly high in the stratosphere but nothing down at the tropopause you don't have enough to really have a PV anomaly to imprint anything on the tropopause and you're not going to get or it's unlikely that you're going to get a strong effect in the troposphere so when people are going out there don't necessarily think that you should just grab the time periods when there's sudden warming it's the vortex variability and how vertically deep that is so with that I'll just throw my summary slide up there and you guys can read that and I'll take any questions


Mr. Chairman, the Secure World Foundation congratulates you on your election to the chair, and we are highly confident that under your ABLE leadership, the subcommittee will make progress on all the important agenda items before us. Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, on behalf of the Secure World Foundation, I appreciate this opportunity to present an update on the Foundation's work since February 2021 in support of the aim of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee. The Secure World Foundation focuses its activities on three primary themes, ensuring the long-term sustainability of outer space activities, fostering the development of sound space policy and law, and enhancing the use of space technology and international cooperation to support human and environmental security on Earth. SWF welcomes the consensus decision reached at the 62nd session of this committee on the adoption of the preamble and 21 consensus LTS guidelines developed by the subcommittee. We believe these guidelines represent an important step forward to preserve outer space as a stable and safe domain for peaceful exploration and use by all states. We encourage states to voluntarily report their implementation successes and challenges as a way to promote wider implementation of the guidelines. Our staff continue to deliver presentations on the LTS guidelines at various governmental and non-governmental fora around the world as our contribution to raising awareness of this important work of the committee. We also welcome the decision taken at the 62nd session of the subcommittee to continue the work on LTS through the establishment of a new working group under a five-year mandate, and we stand ready to support this new working group however we can. In June of 2021, Secure World Foundation organized and hosted the Third Summit for Space Sustainability, a three-day high-level event focused on developing solutions for space sustainability. Like so many other organizations, we had to adapt our summit format due to the global pandemic. However, the virtual platform allowed us to reach a wider audience than ever before. We are pleased to announce that the 2022 Summit for Space Sustainability will be co-hosted by Secure World Foundation and the United Kingdom Space Agency and will be held as an in-person event from June 22nd to 23rd 2022 in London, England. We cordially invite all delegations to attend. More information is available at the website swfsummit.org. This year marks the fifth anniversary of the publication of SWF's Handbook for New Actors in Space, which we unveiled at the subcommittee five years ago. In order to extend the reach of this resource, we have since produced several translations. In 2019, in partnership with the Mexican Space Agency, we launched the Spanish language version of the Handbook at this subcommittee. This year, we are happy to announce we're releasing both Chinese and French language editions of the Handbook. Electronic versions of all editions are available for free download on the SWF website. Over the course of the coming year, we'll be working on a new version of the Handbook and would welcome suggestions from delegates on any changes or updates for our second edition. SWF has also included its role helping to lead the consortium for the execution of rendezvous and servicing operations, or CONFERS, which is continuing to develop best practices and standards for commercial satellite servicing activities. In 2021, CONFERS published an updated version of its guiding principles and recommended design and operating practices. The International Organization for Standardizations draft standard 24330 on satellite servicing continued to make progress, and we began internal work on a new standard on satellite refueling interfaces. CONFERS currently has more than 50 members from 10 countries, and this year announced that we have created a new category for government agencies to join CONFERS as members. More information on how to join CONFERS can be found on the website satelliteconfers.org. A technical presentation on CONFERS with more details will be delivered later during this meeting. We have also continued our efforts to address orbital debris and improve space situation awareness, data sharing, and collaboration. Last September, we once again partnered with the Maui Economic Development Board to hold the 9th annual Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance, or AMOS, dialogue as a hybrid event in conjunction with the AMOS conference. Last year's dialogue focused on using blockchain and other technologies to improve trust and transparency and international SSA data sharing. SWF also once again co-organized the AMOS Policy Forum, which included a discussion on large satellite constellations and right-of-way in space. Finally, SWF is proud to announce a new online resource called the Satellite Dashboard, which aims at providing more transparency and awareness of close approaches between satellites in geostationary orbit. The dashboard was developed in partnership with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the University of Texas at Austin. It uses publicly available SSA data from multiple sources to automatically detect when two satellites in geo are predicted to come close to each other and provides tools to analyze the event. The dashboard can be found at satellite dashboard.org and is free to use. Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, the Secure World Foundation looks forward to continuing to support the committee's efforts to achieve and sustain the continued peaceful uses of outer space. Thank you for your kind attention.


Greetings and welcome to MathHelp for Science Courses. In this lecture, we are going to talk about showing work and what that means in terms of a science course and what your professor will likely expect from you when the professor asks for you to show your work when you're doing that. And there's some very good important reasons as to why we do ask you to show work in all of your problems. So let's talk about that a little bit first here. And first of all, why do I have to show my work? So that's often a big question from students and we will often tell you to show your work. And some of the reasons for this are because it does help you to show that you understand the concepts. Just writing down an answer doesn't show any understanding. And it can also help you find out where you might have gone wrong in a calculation. So when your professor is reviewing it, if all they see is a wrong answer, all they know is that you did something wrong but they don't know what and have no way to give you any kind of feedback other than that it's wrong. Sometimes it's a very simple math error. You typed the wrong number into your calculator and didn't realize it and got the wrong answer. Or is it a deeper problem with understanding the concepts? So it helps the professor to be able to see what you might have done wrong. And it's also helpful for the student because it does require you to think through the process that you are using. And it will minimize errors. It'll actually help you catch errors as you go by looking at each of the steps. And then you can also go back and review and correct any issues much more easily when all you have is an answer to review. You will not likely remember what you were doing or how you got that answer. When you have it looked at step by step, you have a much better idea and are better able to review that and to apply it to other situations. So how do we go about showing work? Well, we can do that in a number of ways, but primarily the best thing is to do is to write out every single step that you go through. So for some simple problems that we'll look at, you might only take a couple of steps. It might be a relatively quick process. Other more detailed problems may have many, many steps that you have to go through. So it might be a lot more work for you to be able to do that. What you should generally do is start off with any equations that you are given and any values that you are given. You might be given some numbers. You want to always put those down and you want to put down any equations that you are using. And then explain how you go through the process. So let's take a look at a couple of examples here as to how you might go about doing this. So starting off with an arithmetic problem here and the problem says 3.5 minus 1.4. That quantity times 1.6 minus 0.9 and you want to find out that equals something and we want to find that answer. Generally it is a good idea to write down what you know and in this case you would just write down the problem that you know minus 1.4 times 1.6 minus 0.9. Now I'm sure at some point you've gone through order of operations so perhaps that's something you know and that we always do what's in parentheses. In this problem it would be parentheses first then the multiplication and then finally the subtraction. So whatever is in parentheses is done first so we would be doing this first. 3.5 minus 1.4 would be 2.1. That is multiplied by 1.6 and then we're going to subtract 0.9. Now the next step we do the multiplication. So we want to multiply 2.1 times 1.6 and we would get 3.36. However remember that we also want to look at our significant figures when we do this. So we would actually write this in only two significant figures. Remember when you're multiplying or dividing numbers you can only use as many significant figures as the least and each of these has two significant figures so your answer would be 3.4 and you would then take that and subtract 0.9 and your final answer would then be 2.5. So that would be your final answer. It's also a good idea to always circle or clearly mark your final answer so that your professor knows that he is not searching through your work to find out what you intend your final answer to be. So in this case if we do this problem you would get 2.5. Now we can look at a couple of other examples as well so let's look at another example and this one is going to ask us to calculate an average speed. Now in this case you were given some numbers you were given a distance 14 kilometers and that's a distance and you're given a time of 2.5 hours. So generally a good idea is even though those are in the problem it shows that what you're doing to be able to put those up here. So we could abbreviate distance by D time by T and write the distance equals 14 kilometers and time is equal to 2.5 hours. So that writes down what we know. Now if we want to find a velocity we're going to need an equation to be able to do that and one equation that is often gone over in many science classes is that velocity equals distance divided by time and you would want to put that equation down tell the professor what equation you are using. Then you would substitute in the numbers that you know. So you would take for example the distance here and put it in for the D you would take the time that you know and put that in for T and you would then find that the velocity is equal to 14 kilometers divided by 2.5 hours. So what is your velocity? Well now we can divide those two numbers and if we divide 14 by 2.5 you would find 5.6 kilometers per hour for our velocity and again make sure you make very clear what your final answer is.  So just writing down for example if all you were to write down if you were given this problem is 14 divided by 2.5 and equals 5.6 while you're getting the correct answer you are not properly showing your work. You need to be showing exactly what steps you went through in order to get that and that really shows your understanding. Now let's look at one more example here and this example uses a small angle formula and the formula is given up here and it says that D, a linear size is equal to alpha which is an angular diameter so this is a linear diameter and an angular diameter multiplied by the distance. So that's the equation. Even though it's given here if you were using that you'd want to write that down in your solution. You would then want to write down what we know. D, the linear diameter, is 3,474 kilometers. We would then write down the distance, sorry the angular diameter, angular diameter equals half of a degree, so 0.5 degrees. Now if we want to put the values in here we need to use this equation but we need to actually convert the angular diameter here given from degrees into the appropriate set of units. So just dividing these two numbers or using these numbers would not give us the correct answer. So if you were just to put this in you would say that 3,474 kilometers divided by 0.5 degrees equals what? Well that would equal about 7,000 kilometers per degree but that doesn't make any sense. That's not giving us a distance. So there's an extra step that has to be done here. So let's clear off this portion that's incorrect. We don't want to look at that but what we're going to have to do is to instead change this into a different version of the formula which still really works out the same. What it says is that d equals alpha lowercase d divided by 206265. So this is the form that will often be used in astronomy which is often where we use this. In this case you need the angular size to be in arc seconds, not in degrees. As it's set up degrees does not work here it needs an even different set of units but let's look at the one that we would actually use. So in this case we would be using this version of the equation we would need to convert this alpha into arc seconds. So alpha is equal to 0.5 degrees and we could multiply that by the number of arc minutes in a degree which is 60 arc minutes per degree and we'd multiply that by 60 arc seconds per arc minute. So in terms of units we can look at what cancels here and the degrees will cancel, the arc minutes will cancel and it leaves us with just an answer in arc seconds which would be 1,800 arc seconds. So now we have a value that can actually be put in here for alpha. So now we want to put our numbers into our equation and we would say that d, the diameter actually let's go ahead and put that in there. So we know our diameter our diameter is 3,474 kilometers. So if we put that in 3,474 kilometers is equal to 1,800 arc seconds times d which is what we're looking for divided by 206265. So what do we have here? Well then we would say that this is, we can then solve for d. So d, lower case d, is equal to and as we bring these to the other side they get flipped over so it's equal to 206265 times 3,474 kilometers divided by the 1,800 arc seconds. So we would look for that and we put those numbers into our calculator at this point and we would find out that the moon is at a distance of about based on these numbers of about 400,000 kilometers and we would keep that with one significant figure because remember we only knew one of our numbers here to one significant figure. So we only knew that the moon was half a degree in angular diameter so that only had one significant figure so when we multiply everything together we need to keep this at one significant figure as well. So otherwise that will show you that the moon would then be about 400,000 kilometers away. So again make sure you're showing your work here and in terms of showing it that means so showing the equation that you used writing down the numbers that you were given if you have to do a conversion like this that work should be shown as well then putting those numbers into your equation and rearranging it as needed and then finally multiplying and dividing or whatever mathematical options you need to do to get your final answer and show each of those every step that you need to do along the way and we find in this case that the moon is about 400,000 kilometers away. So let's summarize here with what we found and what we've gone over and what we've talked about is that it is very important to show the work it's important to the student it's also important to the professor for the professor it shows that what you understand and the professor can help to tell you possibly find out where you might be going wrong or what you might not be understanding that they would not be able to do if you're just giving an answer so you need to be able to show your work the student it helps you in terms of following through and making sure you're doing each step and not skipping anything which can often give you an incorrect answer you should always show each step in any problem requiring a calculation and that does include giving the equations and any values that are given in your explanations so show whatever values you are given show what equations that you're going to be using plug your values in and work through those step by step and if you do it in multiple steps you'll generally find that you make far fewer errors so that concludes this lesson on showing work and we'll be back again next time for another lesson in math help for science courses so until then, have a great day everyone and I will see you in class


Seriously though, you've got so many starters coming back on defense in the off-season. What's the process of trying to build on what you were able to do last year and improve if possible going into a new season? Well, we always have to improve. We have to find ways to improve. And I think that when you look at a lot of the guys that have played for us over the last couple of years, whether that be Kevin, Jeffrey, Harold, Amani, those guys have improved and they've played a lot of football for us. And I appreciate that on my end that guys that are very good players and have been for us have continued to try to find ways to improve. And we'll continue to look at ways that we can help them with scheme and also to continue to work the details, the technique and fundamentals. When a guy like Harold has a career high, it might be something where you may not be able to improve on, say, sack totals, but other areas of the game, other facets. Well, we're not really trying to focus on sack totals. I mean, I think that that's great, our ability to affect the quarterback. And there's a lot of ways to do that. And I'm hopeful that the guys that we send that are pressuring the quarterback can find ways to affect them. And so if the sacks come, great, but we have to affect the quarterback. Here it seems like you've had guys step up and become leaders of that defense. Coach Bowen had mentioned that David Long is really coming along. From your perspective, how is he as far as grabbing that mantle as one of the leaders?  You know, David's a passionate player. I always appreciate that about him. I feel like our relationship has gotten better since, you know, each and every year and, you know, try to harness some of that passion that he has. And, you know, it's just been good to see him continue to grow in our scheme and an understanding of what's going on. More active doing more things today than when we last saw him. Would that be accurate? And are you seeing signs of progress?  I see the mileage, I see the speed, but I don't, I would imagine that that's consistent with everybody that's been out there that, you know, good speed, good workload. So, you know, I'm not saying that it was just going to be more or less, but today there was good work. Albert Breer said many more in quarterback. A lot of teams are at the draft process. We're turned off of Traylin Berks' weight. How have you seen his conditioning kind of come along since he's come to Nashville? Who said that? Albert Breer. You know, we're excited to have Traylin. You know, we feel good about each and every guy we draft. That's why we draft him. So, you know, he's gotten better each day that he's been here. You can let Albert know. Traylin did ask us to ask you if we're wondering about the inhaler. He said, asked Graves about it. So, anything you can add? No. I mean, I think that some guys need inhalers. I mean, Carter used one before and, you know, his brother did it. So, I don't know, I just rely on the trainer and our medical staff to try to take care of these guys and communicate with me. But I do feel like everybody here has gotten in better shape and especially coming off the long weekend. How normal is it for, especially for a rookie to come in this time of year and be a little behind in conditioning? Obviously, they haven't played in a while. Well, you just understand what the process that they go through as far as, you know, getting ready for everything that they're training for as a speed-based measurement to combine short distance explosion. And then we're asking them to come here and start performing some football that's done over the course of time. That could be six or eight seconds long. They go on visits. They go through a draft process. They go to a rookie premiere, which is all things that we know.  And I think that's what we're doing here and we'll continue to do it. It's why we keep them, you know, two extra weeks after our veterans leave from veteran minicamp. And those guys can stay and really start to make some strides in conditioning. Got some changes in personnel, obviously. How much will the ideas of Tim Kelly also kind of influence where you had in the past? I think that every coach that we bring in, we bring in with the idea that they're going to be able to bring input. And that's something that I have to make sure stays consistent, whether that be Chase on special teams, Jim Schwartz, Tim Kelly, and anybody that we bring in. They have to feel comfortable enough to have a voice in the meeting room. Ultimately, I make a decision, but Todd and Shane and Auk would do that before I would. And then, ultimately, I can say, hey, I really like this or let's go in a different direction. I'm not trying to just explain it. When you leave a meeting room as a position coach, you have to feel comfortable that the ideas that you brought forward, you know, were heard and were talked through. And then, ultimately, the coordinators or the head coach made a decision that was best for the team. And then you move on. And I think we've done that. I think everybody's tried to bring ideas, so I don't think that would be any different with Tim. Just because there's no contact doesn't mean he can't make significant gains with his punch and his upper body. How much can a guy do on stuff like that off the field in the offseason? And how much do you expect him to gain between now and the start of camp in that department? Well, I think, you know, not having pads on, you know, sometimes the targets aren't moving. And even in a jog through, you know, you saw just with a little bit of addition to the third down that we had today. You know, those guys aren't sitting ducks. They're not just going to stand there. They're going to move. They're going to go different places. They're going to run games. And I think that this was a good way for us to see some of that and then start to continue to rep some of that. That, you know, it's easy to maybe get better at a stationary target, but we're going to have to really improve with movement and handling movement and games on third down. What would you like about DeMorgas-Walker that made you want to bring him here? Maybe what could his role potentially be? I think the role, you know, Jim, is he's showed versatility throughout his career, liked him all the way back to Florida State when I was in Houston, you know, trying to figure out where he may fit, whether that be standing up, you know, he's played a multiple positions across the front on the edge inside, plays with great, you know, effort, which I, you know, appreciated. He wanted to be here and, you know, it's been really good so far. Does he have a level of maturity that's sometimes unique for a guy his age coming in? Have you seen that so far? You know, I think the maturity, I think that's really hard to identify right now. I don't think that there's enough stress, you know, on these guys physically with the rigors of training camp and, you know, day after day, but I think that he's, you know, come in, he's worked hard, tried to study, take advantage of the opportunity that he's gotten. But, you know, some of that stuff's hard to define until, you know, there's a lot more in play with tickets and family and everything else that goes along with it. Right now, we're just trying to bring them along. And I think Chick and Mitch and Dr. Sheila all help on that maturity, you know, with the rookie program and what they can offer them after we get done with them here with football. Let's continue to develop for Dylan Radins. Are you guys getting to a point where, like, you see him at a particular role as opposed to multiple ones? I don't know right now.  And I don't think that right now is really the time. I think those guys are doing a lot of stuff together and the jog-through stuff really is toned down a little bit. When guys have had footing issues at Nissan Stadium, you've made it about their shoe selection. I've never once said a guy got hurt because of his shoe. No, but you said guys need to choose their... Come on now. Okay, clarify what you've said there. I'm wondering about some of the guys. About a foot injury on a stadium? No, I didn't say anything about injury. I've said when they slip, your indication has been it's not the purpose. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, we just joke about having shoes at work. You know, I'm at all... Are your guys' shoes all broken out here because they seem to be falling quite a bit? Sometimes you cut off the wrong foot. Sometimes the grass is slick. I don't know. We've got 80 guys working and it's all the same condition. So, I mean, it just...  If a guy falls down on a kickoff, you know, bad things happen. If a receiver falls down and he's getting the ball thrown to him, chances are, you know, it's going to be intercepted. Offensive linemen slips, the quarterback gets sacked. Running back slips, fumbles the ball.  Some of the things maybe differently from Dylan here during the offseason as he gets ready for a year or two than maybe you were seeing as a rookie? Well, we didn't have him really. I mean, we didn't have an opportunity to see him and grow. And I think his conditioning level is really good. I think he's recognized that that can be a huge advantage for him. You know, over the course of 65 or 70 snaps, you know, you're going to lose a couple matchups. I mean, that's the nature of this business and that's why it's great. And so I think he's going to try to take care of his conditioning to make sure that that's one area where he can, you know, consider a strength and then continue to develop, you know, the other skills needed to play offensive line. Rookie kickers are usually long shots to make a team. This kids' shoot act has a real strong leg. How do you try and assess those guys when you evaluate them in terms of knowing if they can handle the actual pressure of, you know, what it takes to be an NFL kicker? Like, what do you consider a long shot? Like a 10 to 1 at Belmont? No, no, no. Or like 12 to 1. Usually kickers kind of bounce around a lot before they find a home. Very few of them go one place and stay there. We've tried to provide competition. Those young guys have a strong leg. And I think that the competition in practice has been good. You know, we'll have to see them kick in the games and the preseason games and then, you know, ultimately make a decision, you know, at the end of preseason. But, you know, just like everybody else, they're going to get an opportunity to win a job. What have you seen from him last two weeks? Speed, length. I think he's gotten better. You know, I tried to explain to the team that wasn't the greatest start to the offensive. You know, seven on seven. We took a break, did special teams. And then that's what you have to do. Hooper has to come back and make a play. Josh has to make a play, you know, but then we can't put the ball on the ground. So I think that these practices can be great reminders to, you know, sometimes you don't start the game great. We've been in that position, unfortunately, before defensively. It's like, okay, you started out pretty well. How are you going to, how are you going to finish? So Josh was a part of that process of coming back and making a play after, you know, probably a below average offensive period. What are the impressions of Roger McCreary and how he's acclimated into the defense? Coach Bohn was saying how he just seems to be competitive even in the meeting room as a rookie just in terms of getting information. Yeah, it doesn't say a whole lot. You know, I mean, just kind of shows up, does his job, has a good demeanor, has a really cool DB demeanor that doesn't get too discouraged. You know, every DB and every player gets beat. And he doesn't seem to get too discouraged, kind of comes back and lines up and tries to play the next snap. We're giving him a lot of information. He's playing inside, playing outside. So it's just a good early start. It looked like the defense was kind of all over the ball, just around the ball a lot during some of those reps today. Roger had said after that, that's kind of been a point of emphasis, trying to make plays on the football, trying to force turnovers there. Is that something that you've been kind of preaching and how do you feel like they're doing that? Well, we've always been preaching it and we've always practiced it. I thought we improved last year statistically at the number of secondary PBU's or linebacker PBU's, something that wasn't at the line of scrimmage from a defensive lineman where you see guys stabbing through the pocket and using good technique and being close enough. So I think it's a fine line out here. We have to take care of each other. We'd like to stay up and make sure that we're avoiding contact at all possible here in offseason, but it was good to see. Will you use all your OTA dates? What are some things you do when you're not on the field for OTAs? I don't think we'll probably use entire gamut of them, but I think today was a good work day and some heat tomorrow will come back and we lift, we meet, try to take advantage of that time. Still have an opportunity to walk through, get the veterans out of here and walk through with the rookies. I think that's been really beneficial. So when we're not practicing, they try to get a good lift in and get some really good meeting time in, watch the tape from today. I understand you're seeking versatility out of all of those guys, but wouldn't it be good to be able to pigeonhole a second round pick and say, we have a hole at right tackle? Oh, here's a guy who dropped it to play right tackle. He's our right tackle. I just want to keep working on him and develop him and give him an opportunity to earn a role. Everybody comes back from injuries differently, but you impressed so far with Robert Woods and what you're seeing out here after ACL in mid-November? Yeah, these guys don't have to be here. They don't have to, it's not mandatory that they rehab here and it's great that he's here being a veteran leader and I know that him getting injured is nothing that he could control. He's controlling what he can control, which is his rehab and he does it and the attitude in which he does it with getting here early and it's been really cool for Caleb to be with him and as they go through their rehab process. Would you like things more cemented up there, like by the end of minicamp? No, I don't think that that's something that it's really, again it's hard to evaluate offensive and defensive linemen without pads on. We're running these plays as a jog through to install and get guys to know what to do and so the evaluation for all offensive and defensive linemen isn't going to happen before June 13th. We will identify guys that we think have a potential to help us but then once we get to training camp and pads come on there's always those guys that end up just surprising you.