Welcome everyone, thank you for joining an intimate conversation with leading climate scientists to discuss groundbreaking new research on global warming, particularly the, the paper that is now live today on global warming in the pipeline. I'm pleased to introduce Professor Jeffrey sacks, director of the Center of Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network will be moderating this webinar so Jeff over to you. Thank you very much. I'm really thrilled and I'm only going to speak for a moment because we have a very important paper and several of the authors of this important paper on global warming in the pipeline. It's a complicated paper. The message is extremely important, but I think it needs all of the time of the scientists to explain this paper to us. We're going to hear from several of the authors, starting with the lead author James Hansen of Columbia University. And of course, the longtime lead climate scientist for the US government and for NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. And then we'll hear from several colleagues and, and co authors of this very important paper. We are just weeks before the world will gather in Dubai for COP 28. Excuse me. So the message of this groundbreaking paper is extremely important. And Jim, if I could turn it over to you to start us off, I would be most grateful. Thanks very much, yeah. And thanks to your people and your program for hosting this discussion. We're honored. And I also want to, if I can go to the next chart, I want to thank my co authors for their unique scientific expertise and contributions to this paper. And the editor in chief of Oxford open climate change bill co rolling for inviting me to include my perspective about policy implications, which is the final section of the paper. I'm going to have the next chart. So the climate on our remarkable home planet is characterized by delayed response and amplifying feedbacks, which is a recipe to lock in intergenerational injustice. So we climate scientists have an obligation to explain this situation clearly as best we can, especially to young people, and to include the policy implications. Because if we don't include the implications, people who have a special financial interest will make their own conclusions. The next chart in 1979, the Charny report of the US National Academy of Sciences estimated based on climate models that global climate sensitivity was three degrees Celsius for double atmospheric CO2, but a very large uncertainty. Soon thereafter, it was realized that a much more reliable measure of climate sensitivity could be obtained empirically from the precise knowledge of glacial to interglacial CO2 change provided by ice core data. But this empirical evaluation also requires knowledge of global average glacial to interglacial temperature change. And that remained uncertain because of misleading evaluation of glacial sea surface temperatures that persisted for 40 years. The wrong assumption was that microscopic species in the ocean surface layer would migrate as climate change. So they would always be at the temperature they prefer today, rather than partly adapt over millennia to temperature change. Recently, Jessica Charny and her then postdoc Matt Osman, who is our co-author, developed a global temperature analysis omitting the biology data, but using widespread geochemical proxies, isotopes. And Alan Seltzer used noble gas abundances in groundwater from last glacial maximum at latitudes 45 south to 35 north to evaluate global temperatures, glacial temperatures. In our paper, we show that the Tierney-Osman and Seltzer analyses are consistent, implying a glacial to interglacial temperature change of about seven degrees Celsius. So next chart, we now know the surface temperature during the last glacial maximum and the forcings that maintained the ice age cold. Together, these imply a climate sensitivity of about 4.8 degrees Celsius for double CO2. IPCC's best estimate of three degrees is excluded with greater than 99% confidence. This high climate sensitivity has major implications for global warming in the pipeline. Clouds, which George will talk about in a minute, are the mechanism in climate models that permits a broad range of climate sensitivities. So next chart, oh, I know you have, but no, I actually go back to the one that you just had. So, wait a minute, if climate sensitivity is high, how can climate models with a smaller climate sensitivity, which is most models, obtain realistic global warming for the past century? The answer, the second of the two important climate forcings aerosols are an unmeasured free parameter and models with low climate sensitivity can compensate by understating the aerosol cooling. So can I have the next one? So aerosols are fine airborne particulates. They are a health hazard killing several million people per year. Aerosols also cool the climate by reflecting sunlight to space, their main effect being as condensation nuclei for cloud drops. They slightly increase cloud cover and make clouds a bit brighter. Humanity made a Faustian bargain by offsetting a substantial but uncertain fraction of greenhouse gas warming with aerosol cooling. Now, as we want to reduce all the chronic health effects of aerosols, our first Faustian payment is due. The payment is acceleration of global warming. Next chart, China reduced its aerosols in the past 15 years, and aerosols from ships decreased in 2015 and especially in 2020, as Leon will describe in a few minutes. So we expect the post 2010 global warming rate to increase at least 50%, which is the lower edge of the yellow area. If we are right, the 12 month running mean temperature will rise above the yellow region by next spring as the current El Nino peaks. The mean temperature for the rest of this decade will be at least 1.5 degrees Celsius warming and two degrees Celsius global warming will be reached within 20 years thereafter. The next chart, although aerosol climate, although aerosol climate forcing is unmeasure, there's a great inadvertent aerosol experiment now ongoing that helps to educate us. The International Maritime Organization imposed regulations on the sulfur content of ship fuels in 2015 and tightened the regulations in 2020 and 2020. This should have a detectable effect on clouds, decreasing cloud cover and cloud brightness and thus increasing the sunlight absorbed by Earth. Especially in the North Pacific and North Atlantic regions where shipping is the source of a large fraction of the sulfate aerosols. The next chart, the satellite data, which Norman will talk about suggests that absorbed solar radiation is increasing. It's highly variable because of natural variations of cloud patterns such as the Pacific Decade Lossillation. But since the strong regulations on ships went in effect in 2020, solar radiation absorbed by Earth has increased about 3 watts per meter squared in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. The next chart, on global average, the solar radiation absorbed by Earth has increased about one watt per meter squared. The next chart, this increase of absorbed solar radiation is the reason that Earth's energy imbalance has almost doubled since 2015. When I gave a TED talk more than a decade ago, Earth's energy imbalance was about six-tenths of a watt per square meter, which is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day. That much energy being poured mostly into the ocean. That imbalance has now doubled. That's why global warming will accelerate. That's why global melting will accelerate. Now the next chart, let's look at the absorbed solar radiation again.  Let's compare it with greenhouse gas climate forcing. The next chart, the greenhouse gas climate forcing on the next chart has increased about 0.045 watts per meter squared per year, which is almost half a watt per decade. So the one watt increase of absorbed solar radiation is equivalent to more than a 20-year increase of greenhouse gases at their current high rate of increase. That's why I can say with confidence that global warming will now accelerate. Let's first look at greenhouse gases. Several years ago, IPCC defined a scenario RCP 2.6 aimed at keeping global warming less than two degrees Celsius. And Pushkar will comment on the modeling assumptions that lead to such drastically declining greenhouse gas emissions. But the real world overshot the plan. We could close the gap by extracting CO2 from the air, but the annual costs now has reached 3.5 to 7 trillion dollars based on estimates of David Keith on CO2 extraction. The cost of offsetting the decreased aerosol cooling would be 115 to 230 trillion dollars. Conclusion, the two degrees Celsius global warming limit is dead. Unless we take purposeful actions to alter Earth's energy imbalance. The next chart. The first thing that we must do is reduce emissions as rapidly as possible. But fossil fuels are providing most of the world's energy almost 80%. The next chart. Most of today's emissions and future emissions are from emerging economies, nations that want to raise their living standards. The next chart. The task to reduce. No, actually, let's go back one chart to the yellow and blue one. Yeah, as I said, most of today's emissions are from emerging economies so we can go to the next chart. The task is to reduce the carbon intensity of global energy to near zero. But we reduced it only from point eight to point seven in the past half century. It's not plausible for it to go to near zero by mid century. Sweden did well by decarbonizing its electricity in part by building nuclear power plants. Now my last chart on the fundamental required actions. None of these are occurring. Rising carbon fee is the fastest most effective way to affect all uses of fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel industry has prevented it. Instead of East West cooperation. Our politics and special interests have led to a focus on economic and military. Which is foolish because we're all in the same boat and will sink together if we don't work together. I don't think that anyone asks young people if that if this confrontational approach is the kind of world they wish to aim for the 1.5 degree limit is better than a doornail. And the two degree limit can be rescued only with the help of purposeful actions to affect Earth's energy balance. We will need to cool off Earth to save our coastlines coastal cities worldwide and low lands. While also addressing the other problems caused by global warming. Now it will take several years for socialization of what is needed for the public to understand. It will be aided by the increasing problems that they will see from global warming. That several years will provide the time that young people need to understand this matter. Specifically, the fact that I believe a political party that takes no money from special interest is probably an essential part of the solution. Young people should not underestimate their political thought. Thanks. Thank you very much, Jim. I could you just before we turn to George, just say a word about the 1.5 degree C target and the two degree you said that it's it's dead. Could you just explain quantitatively what you mean by that to help people understand where we are and where we are heading right now. In the next several months, we're going to go well above 1.5 C on a 12 month average. Now, as we go from the El Nino to the La Nina, it will drop back below the yellow region that I showed in my chart and may fall as low as 1.4 to 1.3. For the rest of this decade, the average is going to be at least 1.5. We know that because the planet is now out of balance by an incredible amount more than it ever has been, you know, it's double. So you've got a huge amount of incoming energy that that's what causes the temperature change. So 1.5 degrees is already is it's going is going to be occurring in the next several months and the average over the next several years will be at least that level. If there's more energy coming in and going out the planet is going to get warmer. And we're already at that level. And the so far as two degrees is concerned. You can see that the attempts to make a plan for how you could stay under two degrees. We're shooting way over that. And that was without considering the effect of this additional imbalance caused by aerosols being reduced. There's as push girl will show that the scenarios that you would need to stay under two degrees are just not their imaginary. And the aerosol just complicates it further. So we can do it we will have to do it. But it's going to require the combination of reducing emissions as rapidly as possible. And also if we're going to avoid Antarctic, you know there's a well I shouldn't go into details but if we're going to keep sea level close to where it is. We actually have to cool the planet. We can't allow it to continue to be out of balance the way it is now because it's melting the ice shelves and we're going to lose the West Antarctic ice sheet. If we don't cool the planet off. Thank you. Grimm and we'll come back to this in the Q and a no doubt and in the conclusions but let's turn to George cell, you just at NASA's Goddard Institute of space studies who's going to talk to us about the cloud modeling that is a part of the, the new insights showing this increased climate sensitivity so over to you George. Thank you Jeff. So, I'm going to talk a little about clouds and they're all in determining climate sensitivity. And then from the older generation of climate models the semi five models to the semi six models. One thing we noticed right away was that climate sensitivity increased, and there was a big effort to try and understand why these models are generally warmer than the semi five ones, and the chart on the left is showing you, I think our best estimate that why this is happening. What you see on the left is the semi five models are the blue models is this is the change in cloud feedback basically it's cloud warming versus cloud cooling so anything above zero is warming anything below zero is cooling. So, you see that the blue models are cooler than than the red models or yellowish models which are the same six models, mostly because of what is happening in the southern ocean because of what is happening south of 30 degrees south between 30 degrees south, where the new climate models the six models are warming the planet a lot more than the semi five models. So, the feedback in the southern ocean is the main reason that the semi six models have higher climate sensitivity than the semi five models. Well, now the question that we need to resolve is, because what I'm showing you here the line is the average of a number of models, some of them have higher sensitivity some of them have lower sensitivity. So, I'm showing you the average which takes into account all of them. The question is, which models are more reliable, which ones are the ones that we can believe more than the others. So, we're focusing on the southern ocean to try and understand how well the models are doing clouds in the southern ocean. And this is what the chart on the right is showing you. So, the chart on the right is showing you low cloud cover in the whole world basically going from 60 south to 60 north if you go from bottom to top for every month going from January to December. And the, the panel on the left is the climate models that have high climate sensitivity. The panel in the middle are climate models that have low climate sensitivity and the panel on the right is observations. So basically, what you want to do is compare the panel on the right with the two panels on the left and see which one you believe more. Well, just by looking first of all at the colors, which are showing you the cloud cover, you will see that the panel on the left resembles a lot more of the panel on the right than the middle one. One seems to have a lot less low clouds throughout the globe than the observations or the high climate sensitivity models. So the high climate sensitivity models are making low clouds a lot better than the low climate sensitivity models and any modeler would trust the model much more when it's more realistic. So basically, do they make better low clouds that high sensitivity models but they also make the seasonal variation better. For example, look at how clouds change with with the season on the right in the observations in the southern ocean which is the area that we want to focus most. You can see that the observation shows that clouds increase in the northern hemisphere summer basically June, July, August for May to August or September and they decrease in the twos between January and March and after September. So if we look at the models, the high sensitivity models, they do the same thing they increase their clouds during the summer season, the northern hemisphere summer. However, the low sensitivity models are doing the opposite they decrease their clouds, not only they don't have the right amount of clouds, but they also decrease them at the right season. So this is telling us that the high sensitivity models are doing a better job of producing those clouds that according to the left panel are really important in order to understand climate sensitivity. So this is why we believe that sensitivity is around even above 4.5 those high sensitivity models have sensitivity is about 4.5 degrees Celsius. Sensitivity is above 4.5 degrees are better are more reliable as far as climate feedbacks are concerned. And just one last point to make here is that you see here that I'm trying to understand this by using seasonal variability because with seasons things change a lot. We need a lot more detail in our cloud observations in order to take the last 40 years and understand the changes over this time period. However, the way we're going is we're reducing the, basically the funding spend and the missions, the satellite missions that are needed in order to try and understand this cloud feedback and cloud and narrow soil interactions. And this is something that's worrisome. We are at a very critical position at a very critical time. We need to make decisions fast about our future. And at the same time, we're reducing our capability to observe the planet, the way that we in the detail that we need in order to understand what is going on. And this is, to me, a very counterproductive, in order not to use a worse policy to follow at this critical time, reducing our investment in observing the air from space is exactly the wrong thing to do. George, thank you very much. Very important and also alarming on both the dimensions of what you're finding and what we're not measuring. Let me turn to Dr. Pushkar Karecha at the Columbia University Climate School. And I think Pushkar, you're going to talk about the comparison of the new paper and the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates. It's somewhat related, yes. I'm going to be talking about the comparison of the reason basically why I integrated assessment models and IPCC mitigation scenarios stretch plausibility. Okay, so just to make sure we're all on the same page, I wanted to briefly describe the general framework of integrated assessment models shown here as a flow chart. The output of which is used to drive global climate models and generate mitigation scenarios. These models overall are useful, of course, but they contain, in my view, many dubious assumptions. And the ones I'm going to focus on here are technology availability and implementation. And the bottom line, this has led to an over-reliance, in my view, on unproven mitigation methods, including large-scale BEX or bioenergy plus carbon capture and storage, and DAX, direct-air carbon capture and storage, and other negative emissions technologies or carbon dioxide removal methods. So in terms of just the core mitigation problem we face as a world, I think this figure from the IPCC report, the most recent one, AR6, summarizes things very nicely. It shows the cumulative emissions from existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure alone on the left. And on the right, the gray bar shows the remaining allowable carbon budgets in the one-and-a-half and two-degree mitigation scenarios. And so what we see from that is basically the cumulative emissions, if we just look at existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure, they already exceed essentially the entire range that's consistent with the one-and-a-half degree scenario. And even a good chunk of the remaining budget associated with the two-degree scenario. So the clear and immediate implication of this is that existing fossil fuel sources, fossil fuel infrastructure, must be either phased down or decommissioned outright. And the planned projects essentially have to be canceled. So in terms of the CO2 emissions that are projected by IAMs and used to generate mitigation scenarios to drive global climate models, this is another figure from the same IPCC report. They show very large increases in very uncertain negative emissions sources that I mentioned in both the land and energy sectors. Over the next few decades across most scenarios, especially on the stringent side, the one-and-a-half degree scenarios. So the basic problem with this approach is that it does not sufficiently address the conflicts with other environmental and social goals, namely sustainable development, food production, water use, and so on. So in summary, in terms of reality versus mitigation scenarios and IAMs, there's good news and bad news. On the bright side, clean energy sources are very rapidly and substantially increasing all around the world, especially in the countries we need them most, namely the top CO2 emitters. But the timescale of required growth of these sources in both the one-and-a-half and two-sea scenario sets seems unrealistic. For example, if you look at the increase just this past decade, excuse me, the increase that's required this decade in either the one-and-a-half or two-degree scenarios, it has to equal or exceed the increase over the entire last three decades. And Mino on the downside, unfortunately, fossil fuel emissions are, of course, still rising with no peak in sight, at least not any time soon. So the- I can't tell you anymore. We may have lost Pushkar's connection. Okay, I think we have. In the interest of time, because we are running a little bit late, could I turn to Leon Simons of the Club of Rome to talk about the changes of maritime emissions? And Pushkar, we're going to move quickly to Leon, if that's all right. Okay, great. Thanks a lot. To Leon Simons, who will speak about international maritime organization regulations and its implications for the aerosol emissions and those implications for the increase of increased rate of warming. So, Leon, to you, please. Thank you, Jeff. Hi. Yeah, as Pushkar mentioned, greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing. But there's one thing that is decreasing, as Jim already referred to, and that's the sulfur emissions. These are decreasing much faster than anticipated because health and environmental regulations are very successful. And why is that important? Here, I copied here the most important forcing agents from the IPCC, and it shows the warming effect from greenhouse gases here, and then the cooling effect from sulfur dioxide emissions up to 2019. And on the right, you see the global sulfur dioxide emissions. And as you can see, most of these emissions are over the northern hemisphere. That means that the cooling effect of sulfur is mainly focused, and that's the best estimate of the IPCC. And our research shows that it's probably, and you can see there's a very big uncertainty, our research shows that the cooling effect is most likely stronger than the IPCC estimated. But it's not the whole story because the cooling effect is even stronger over the northern hemisphere, where seven of the eight billion people on this planet live than on the southern hemisphere. Because on the northern hemisphere is where all these sulfur particles were emitted. And as Jim already mentioned, these particles they reflect, the sulfur is inside the fuels when it's taken out of the ground. And when it's burned, the sulfur enters the atmosphere and it reflects sunlight. And it makes clouds brighter and longer lasting and bigger, and which also reflects more sunlight. And if you reduce these particles, this is the burning of these fuels, the emissions will decrease, and then the amount of sunlight that's reflected will also decrease, which makes more sunlight being absorbed by the earth, and then increased, that would increase the warming. Or more accurately, it will hide less of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. And this one figure of the paper, here you can see, again, the North America is Asia, and you see the total sulfur emissions, that's both from natural sources and from human sources. And here on the right, we show the emissions which are from shipping. And then you can see that over half of the emissions, both natural from algae for example, and from volcanoes, more than half of these emissions of sulfur are over the North Pacific and over the North Atlantic are from shipping, and that's before shipping regulations came into effect. And here I showed it from the International Maritime Organization, the changes in how much sulfur is allowed to be in the fuels ships burn. These are 50,000 very large ships transporting goods all over the world, and in 2010 and 2015 you see that this is in the regions in the North Sea and around North America, these emissions were reduced. But globally, the biggest reduction happened in 2020, when the maximum amount of sulfur that was allowed to be in the fuel went from 3.5% to 0.5%, reducing the sulfur emissions over the oceans by 80%. Here you can see what that means from 1900 to 2020, this is the shipping sulfur dioxide emissions in thousands of tons. And then you can see here, they nosedived when these regulations came into effect on January 1, 2020. And here again, the map I've shown before, this is the satellite data from NASA, from the series mission, looking at how much sunlight comes in, and then at the top of the atmosphere, how much sunlight comes in, and then how much is reflected. And that means then you can calculate how much net radiation is absorbed, this is the 48th month running mean. You can see in this region, and in this red and this purple region, the North Pacific and the North Atlantic, as Jim already mentioned, there's a big increase of about 3 watts per square meter of radiation. So that means that a lot more sunlight and a lot more heat is being absorbed. And if you compare that to the Southern Hemisphere Ocean, there we don't see that. So we can compare these very large regions of about 30 million square kilometers and about 25 million square kilometers to this large region on the Southern Hemisphere. And then we see that, of course, there's some increase, because if the Earth warms, that decreases cloud cover, as George already showed. And then, so there is also the Southern Hemisphere of the oceans, there's some decrease in increase, or in the amount of sunlight being absorbed. But on the Northern Hemisphere, especially in recent years, it increased much more. And there's some variability, which is more related to El Nino and to the Pacific Decade Oscillation. Maybe Norman can talk about that a bit, because they found already in 2021 that the rate of global warming had doubled, both from ocean heat content data and from satellite data, from the same satellite data. But they also looked at this effect. But now we see, while we expected it to start decreasing, because of El Nino, sorry, and negative video, it started increasing instead. And what does it mean for the world as a whole? That means that more sunlight is rapid. There's a very rapid increase in how much sunlight is being absorbed. That's in yellow, and then in red, that's outgoing infrared or heat radiation. And the difference is the net imbalance, or the Earth's energy imbalance. So how much energy is accumulating in the Earth system? And as Jim already mentioned, that has more than doubled even. Especially in the recent, in the past three years, we see it is increasing more and more. Opposite of expectations, if you wouldn't include these aerosol changes. And then, so if you deduct the amount of absorbed solar radiation, if you deduct the outgoing heat radiation, you get the net effect. And that's what you see here, that there's a very high increase in how much net energy accumulates on Earth system, which we call the Earth's energy imbalance. And again, this is from satellite data, but it's supported by evidence from ocean heat content data and other evidence. Thank you. Jeff, you're on mute. Leon, thank you very much. Very clear and very striking. Let's turn quickly to Norman Loeb at NASA to talk about the satellite measurements and their current status. And then we'll turn to Q&A. There is so much material here, a number of people want to ask questions. So let's see if we can squeeze in as many as possible. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I'm going to talk about the satellite measurements specifically series, which stands for clouds and the Earth's radiant energy system. So we've seen different versions of this. This is the series record, Global Mean All Sky Radiation. I'm showing what we measure. So we observe the reflected solar radiation. We have other instruments at NASA that measure the incoming solar. And so the incoming solar minus the reflected solar gives you the absorbed solar. And that's really what fuels climate system. In the blue, it's the emitted thermal infrared radiation. And that's essentially how Earth sheds heat. And as we heard, the difference between those two or some of these two give you the net radiation. What I'm showing here are anomalies, which are deviations from climatology. And the striking thing that we've observed with these measurements is these trends. We're seeing a very large trend, as we heard, in absorbed solar radiation, a weaker negative trend in terms of more outgoing radiation. And so the net is positive. So there's already a positive energy imbalance, as I'm showing you in the table below, where it was about half a watt during the first 10 years of series. And during the last 10 years, leading up to every 2023, it went to one watt. So it's pretty alarming. And it's very robust because we can compare it with in situ data from ocean heat storage. This is the only record in the world, the only dedicated record satellite record for Earth radiation in the world. We're at it. To put this into a different context, you could take the green line I showed in the previous slide and integrate that over the whole globe and then look at the how much energy has been accumulated into the Earth system. And this is essentially it. The monthly mean is in blue. There's a seasonal cycle and then the 12 month running average is in red. And to put that into context, the total energy that's been added to the climate system since we started taking series measurements is 60 times greater than the global primary energy consumption. So it's a lot of energy. Most of it, as Jim said, ends up as heat storage in the ocean. About 2% is used to warm the atmosphere, 5% to heat land, and the remainder is used to melt snow and ice. And so the implications of this are really huge for people living on Earth. So here's the flight schedules. We've been really fortunate to have been able to launch so many satellite instruments. So there are six flight models of series to launched on Terra satellite. It launched in 2029. All of these are five year normal missions and truly remarkable. Terra is still going 23 years later. And we anticipate that it'll go through 2026 when it'll run out of fuel. So it's really an engineering marvel. All of the instruments and satellite are doing great. Aqua. Similarly, two instruments there. It's just over 21 years and will also run until 2026. We have two other series instruments flight models, five and six that are flying on Noah satellites, Sumi MVP launched in 2011 and Noah 20 and 2017. And those are doing great and could go pretty far if they're allowed to, but there are programmatic constraints, budgetary constraints that make their end life here uncertain. And so we're hoping that these are allowed to continue and overlap with the next instrument that hasn't launched yet. Libra instrument that's going to launch at the end of 2027. It's really important to have these overlap because a gap in the record would really increase the uncertainty. And so after Libra after its five year nominal mission, we have nothing planned at this point. And so that means, first of all, Libra could be a single point failure. It could be the only satellite flying. And it'll be beyond its prime mission nine years from now. And so that is concerning. So at NASA Langley, we've been developing innovative small set technology that can continue this record beyond Libra at a much lower cost on a platform that is much more autonomous on a much smaller platform that's more nimble in terms of launching than has been previously possible with these bigger satellites. And so I hope we get the opportunity to fly these satellites to continue this very important record. Thank you. Chairman, thank you very much. Very, very important and very interesting. We will turn to Q&A. I'd like to call Seth the Bornstein of AP first and then Gloria Dickey of Reuters then Adam Vaughan of Times of London. So, Seth. Yes, thank you. In turn, I have two questions, mostly for Dr. Hansen. When you read, when I reached out to a whole bunch of other mainstream climate scientists, people like Z. Cosvath or Michael Mann, they said they called your work somewhat hyperbolic. They said it is plausible on the edge of plausible or at the high end of plausible, but not likely. And that might be fair to call some of those some of the kinder. And so in what is it, but they also, to be honest, say you have a rep, you know, your history is of being right when you're out on a limb. Why are you right this time, compared to other, you know, compared to the mainstream And then the second question goes into the 20, the 2.7, I mean, 0.27 degrees per decade since 2010. Well, that was started out as a strong El Nino year. It also ended as a strong La Nina year. Are you cherry picking a start date here? I know no data shows it's 0.27 since 2010. Is that why chose, why did you choose that date and how does Enso factor in to, you know, when you're looking at that change and that acceleration. Thank you. And thank you for doing this. Thank you, Seth. Okay, to start with how. How do we get these conclusions and are they fringe? No, you know, it's very, it's very simple. The sensitivity is based on now, very hard numbers. The, for the temperature change between the glacial and interglacial times, which for decades, we thought that the claim was that it was only three to four degrees. We now know that that's wrong. And the uncertainty is small compared to the change. Physics there is very straightforward. It's, it's the real world that's telling us what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is, and that's far better than models in which you can get any answer depending on what cloud feedbacks you put in. But as George showed, when you, when you do improve your cloud physics and make it look more like the real world, it also increases the climate sensitivity. So there's every reason to believe that this is this is not fringe. This is the correct physics and it's the real world and it takes it sometimes takes the community a while to catch on. Now, the other, there was another thing about the physics. What was the second part of that? About the increased warming to 0.27 and the dates that you picked and the evidence. That was the third part, but let me, let me, let me answer that third part. No, if you look at the temperature change since 1970, it's been basically was a straight line. It's linear from 1970 up to the past decade. And the point that we're starting at, if you saw the charts that Leon showed, and the change in the aerosols occurred from China and from the shipping beginning in about 2010. And the reason to have that is the hinge point, and it's not at an extreme at El Nino or El Nino. We take the mean of that curve so there's no, it's, it's, it is an objective way to do it. And the other part, and this may be what I was forgetting about the second part. The physics is very clear. The warming is due to the planetary energy imbalance. You got more energy coming in than going out. The planet warms up. We've now got a double, we've doubled the imbalance, and that's going to increase the warming rate. Now it's not simply based on the current imbalance. You have to integrate over time and you're getting some still getting some warming from additions to the imbalance that occurred 100 years ago. But as we show quantitatively in the paper you would still expect at least a 50% increase in the warming rate. And that's what we will soon find out because, you know, the next few years will show that indeed we do have an acceleration in the global warming rate. Thank you. It's based on simple good physics. Just look at the paper you'll see that. Jim, thank you very much. Just to say we're short of time. There are a number of questions that have been asked on the chat and we will share those questions with the authors afterwards. So some of you may get feedback by email. But in the meantime, let me ask Gloria Dickey of Reuters to be next. Hi, yes, thank you for doing this. I just wanted to ask to kind of put this into the context of, you know, the global climate diplomacy and upcoming talks at COP 28 if 1.5 is indeed dead so much of the rhetoric of course is keeping 1.5 alive. How do you kind of square that with what we're going to see in a few weeks I mean our, you know, world leaders kind of living in an unimaginary world at this point you know what should the aims be of these talks. How long do you expect it will take you know kind of policy and discussion to catch up to thinking that 1.5 is dead. Just kind of where do we go from here. Thank you. Yeah, I think that is. That is a shortcoming of our scientific community to not make clear to the political leaders what the situation is 1.5 is better than adorning and anybody who understands the physics knows that. When you look at the real real the real potential. If you look at the energy a story you will understand that you are not the rest of the world is not going to suddenly get off of fossil fuels. They're just too convenient they raise standards of living. I said a number of times one gallon of gasoline contains more than 400 hours of labor by a healthy adult. And and as I showed a graph on the on the carbon intensity of energy we've we've reduced it from point eight to point seven and 50 years that's not going to go to zero in a few decades. There are no plans to do that. And as pushers charts showed the assumptions that are made in these integrated assessment models that IPC is using are just inconsistent with the real world and what is happening. So we're also going to pass two degrees that's clear unless we take actions to affect the planet's energy balance. And all those models by the way do not include the decreasing aerosols and the large additional burden that that puts no one watt per meter squared is an enormous a forcing to try to overcome I I mentioned that you want to do it by extracting CO2 it costs you more than $100 trillion. It's not going to happen. So we have to be so young people need to understand what they are being handed by the older generation they can't allow this fake stories to to mislead them. They're going to actually have to affect the politics so that the special interests do not control and I'm especially the fossil fuel industry does not control the future. And in the United States, you can't solve the problem with two political parties that are both taking money from the special interest. I think that in my opinion, we're going to have to get a party that takes no money from special interest. And that's the only way we'll get policies that young people want and are needed to assure their future. If I could just add a word just to be absolutely clear. The fact that 1.5 degrees C is going to be exceeded must be interpreted properly to mean the emergency is much greater than these politicians either know or pretend. It's not that it's less or that there's less reason for action. There's much more reason for action at a much more urgent pace. And that's the real message of all of this. So it's not to exonerate lazy politicians who have done little till now. It's to tell them that their fakery is exposed because the rate of warming is higher. The emissions continue to rise. The drama that the planet is entering is much greater than they pretend. And so the action has to be commensurate with that reality. I just want to be absolutely clear that this isn't used to mock the idea of action. It's the opposite. It's to mock the inaction. It's to say that the emergency is much, much higher than people realize right now. And I just want to add that point. If we could turn to Adam Vaughn of Times of London. Hi, thanks for doing this. James, I just want to ask a couple of questions. Are the five warmest months in a row that we've seen this year a sign of the acceleration you're talking about in your paper? How worried should we be by those temperatures? And I just wanted to ask just to get your estimate on climate sensitivity in context a bit, if you could do that. So you're saying 4.8 degrees for a doubling of CO2, which is obviously a lot more than the IPCC. I don't think it's, and I'm obviously not a scientist, I don't think it's completely out of line with other literature, is it? So I just wondered if you could just put it in context a little bit with what we've known before. Thank you. I'm not sure I understood the question, but the 4.8 degrees is actually not outside of the IPCC range. They tend to give very large ranges, but they said their best estimate was 3 degrees Celsius. And it is clear from the real world response to the change in foresees between the glacial and interglacial periods. The three degrees is excluded. It's higher than that. It could be the uncertainty at 1.2 degrees would mean that 4 degrees Celsius is a possible sensitivity. But even that is much larger than the three degrees. And Jim, the first question was what should we make of the record breaking temperatures of the recent five months? Is this part of the evidence of what you're arguing? Yeah, absolutely it is. If you look at the, you know, part of the problem is separating signal from noise and you have a large natural variability of global temperature, especially associated with the tropical cycles, the southern oscillation. But you can minimize that effect of that variability by looking at the peaks of the large El Ninos. And the most recent large El Nino was only eight or nine years ago. And yet the warming since then, it's already clear, is going to be comparable to the warming that occurred between the prior Super El Ninos, which was more like 18 years. So the rate is almost double. And that's not surprising because the planet's energy imbalance is double. So heat is pouring into the planet at twice the rate. And that's that is a principal reason why we're getting these extremely large month after month global temperatures. Thank you. Could we turn to Grist? And if we have time, we'll finish up with Alejandro de la Garza at Time Magazine. We're running late, but let's try to get to two more questions in. Hi. If you could be quick, please. Yes, of course. I had a question about tipping points, which is, you know, what are the implications of those given that your research shows will reach 1.5 by the end of the decade. Thank you. The most important tipping point is the Antarctic ice sheet, and in particular, the Thwaites glacier, which whose grounding line has been moving inland at a rate of about a kilometer per year. And in another 20 years, it will reach a point where it. The the bed is so called retrograde bed so it gets deeper. The Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock below sea level, but it gets deeper as you go toward the center of the continent and it gets hits a canyon in about 20 years if we continue at 1 kilometer per year. When it hits that canyon, you're going to get very rapid disintegration of that glacier, which is basically the cork that's holding a lot of the West Antarctic ice in the bottle. We don't want to get there. And if we want to prevent to slow down and even stop the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we'll have to cool off the planet. That's, and we need to do that because more than half of the large global cities in the world are on coastlines and they're a lot of lowlands. So that that's the tipping point, which I think dominates. But it so happens that there's so many other climate impacts that we're beginning to see and what would be much more if we go beyond two degrees. But there are many reasons to want to cool off the planet. If we want to keep a planet that looks more or less like the one that has existed the last 10,000 years, we actually have to cool off the planet back to a Holocene level temperature. And that's possible, but it's not easy. Maybe if you could just to say one more sentence on that, that is essentially Mr. Dilla Garza's question. What do you mean by cooling off the planet? I mean cooling it back. You know, it's comparable to what it was before the. But how is the question? Oh, how? Well, we were going to have to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical because otherwise any artificial ways to cool the planet are going to be overwhelmed. But we know when Pinot tube all went off, it put aerosols in the stratosphere, which we changed the planet's energy budget by three watts per meter square reduction.  That's more than enough to put you from warming into cooling. So there are, there are ways to do it. And not just putting aerosols in the stratosphere there, you can have autonomous sailboats putting sea salt in the atmosphere and seeding clouds, which many people would consider more innocuous than putting aerosols in the stratosphere. But rather than describe those efforts as threatening geoengineering, we have to recognize we're geoengineering the planet right now. This is what we're doing with these huge greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere is forcing the planet at a rate 10 times greater than has ever occurred in the Earth's history as far as we know. We have to minimize that human made geoengineering and on a temporary timescale that will probably require reflecting sunlight, just because of how difficult it is to get the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Oh, we're not going to do such a thing this year or next year. People have to understand the situation and they have to see that the problem is getting worse and worse. And, and we have to understand the implications better. We're doing the opposite. I think that's, that's important to make clear that we're now doing the opposite of, of reflecting more sunlight, we are reflecting less sunlight. That's why the warming rate is accelerating because we're actually decreasing human made aerosols. But when, when you, instead of, we have to compare the current geoengineering with the strong warming that that causes and all the problems that's going to cause at low latitudes and increase storms and increased floods and things with the situation where we bring the temperature back down and it may have regional effects. But overall, the global climate effects are are likely are surely much less than if we continue on this path and get several degrees of global warming. But yeah, no, I think we're going to have to close because we're 10 minutes after the hour. I want to thank everybody for participating. Please everybody down. Make sure that you have the paper. It is an extraordinarily important paper. And we have a number of questions in chat, which we will convey to the authors and I'm sure that the authors will also be ready to follow up with you directly by by email. And if we could put a link, Allison, in the chat for people to follow up directly with you so that we can help to intermediate, intermediate the questions. Let me thank everybody again. And we're in a in a grim situation. And I think that's clear. It's even grimmer that the politicians have failed their responsibility to the world now for quite a long time. I for one am horrified to put them in a position of further engineering a disaster when they can't even do the straightforward things. But that's a that's a time for another, another talk and another another discussion. We have a massive political failure, our politicians like wars, they don't want to save the planet in the right way. So let's bring it to an end now and thanks, Jim. Thank you, George Pushkar, Leon and Norman for a extremely important contribution to the scientific and to the public understanding and thanks to the colleagues at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network for changing this conversation with the world leading climate scientists and best wishes to everybody today. And bye bye. Thank you Jeff very much. Thank you.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session, we are going to discuss the following question which says that evaluate limit x tends to 0, 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x upon 4 whole raise to power 3 by x. Now in Hopeter's rule states that f of x and g of x are the two functions such that f of a is equal to 0 and g of a is equal to 0 then limit x tends to a f of x by g of x is equal to limit x tends to a f dash of x upon g dash of x. With this key idea let us proceed with the solution. Now we have to find the value of the expression limit x tends to 0, 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x whole raise to power 3 by x is equal to 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x whole upon 4 raise to power 3 by x taking log on both the sides log of y is equal to 3 by x into log of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x whole upon 4 which implies that log of y is equal to 3 by x log of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x minus of log of 4 since log of a upon b is equal to log of a minus log of b and this can be written as log of y is equal to 3 into log of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x minus log of 4 whole upon x. Now taking the limit on both the sides we have limit x tends to 0 log of y is equal to 3 into limit x tends to 0 log of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x minus of log of 4 whole upon x. Now if we put the value of x as 0 in this expression we get so we have log of 1 raise to power 0 plus 2 raise to power 0 plus 3 raise to power 0 plus 4 raise to power 0 minus log of 4 whole upon 0 which is equal to log of 1 raise to power 0 is 1 plus 2 raise to power 0 is 1 plus 3 raise to power 0 is 1 plus 4 raise to power 0 is 1 minus log of 4 upon 0 which is equal to log of 4 minus log of 4 whole upon 0 which is of 0 by 0 form. So, expression on the right hand side is of 0 by 0 form according to L Hoppeter's rule if f of x and g of x are the two functions such that f of a is equal to 0 and g of a is equal to 0 then limit x tends to a f of x upon g of x is equal to limit x tends to a f dash of x upon g dash of x therefore applying L Hoppeter's rule on the right hand side of the equation we get 3 into limit x tends to 0 differential of the numerator with respect to x that is differential of log of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x with respect to x we have 1 upon 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x into differential of 1 raise to power x plus 2 raise to power x plus 3 raise to power x plus 4 raise to power x with respect to x i.e. 1 raised to power x into log of 1 plus 2 raised to power x into log of 2 plus 3 raised to power x into log of 3 plus 4 raised to power x into log of 4 minus differential of log of 4 with respect to x i.e. 0 upon differential of x with respect to x i.e. 1. Now putting the value of x i 0 we get 3 into 1 raised to power 0 log of 1 plus 2 raised to power 0 log of 2 plus 3 raised to power 0 log of 3 plus 4 raised to power 0 log of 4 upon 1 raised to power 0 plus 2 raised to power 0 plus 3 raised to power 0 plus 4 raised to power 0 which is equal to 3 into log of 1 plus log of 2 plus log of 3 plus log of 4 upon 1 plus 1 plus 1 that is 3 upon 4 into log of 1 plus log of 2 plus log of 3 plus log of 4 which can be written as 3 by 4 into log of 1 into 2 into 3 into 4 since log of a plus log of b plus log of b can also be written as log of a b c b which is equal to 3 by 4 into log of 24. So we have limit x tends to 0 log of y is equal to 3 by 4 into log of 24 which can also be written as log of limit x tends to 0 y is equal to log of 24 raised to power 3 by 4 which implies that limit x tends to 0 y is equal to 24 raised to power 3 by 4 and y is given by 1 raised to power x plus 2 raised to power x plus 3 raised to power x plus 4 raised to power x whole upon 4 whole raised to power 3 by x therefore we have limit x tends to 0 1 raised to power x plus 2 raised to power x plus 3 raised to power x plus 4 raised to power x upon 4 whole raised to power 3 by x is equal to 24 raised to power 3 by 4 which is the required answer. This completes our session hope you enjoyed this session.


When starting off your business is very, very crucial for you to gain that initial momentum for you to be able to actually feel how it's like creating 10 orders at once or 20 orders at once because this allows you to work out your operations and allows you to actually see what would be potentially wrong. I'll give you an example. When we first started our Bulbasaur kit, that's the case study we created to showcase with you. Our idea was to create only 20 kits. Now, when we are actually going to produce it, we actually can only have enough ingredients to produce 10 kits. And all in all, it took us another extra week to get all the additional ingredients in because of our lack of, I guess, experience operating the business. And that's exactly what you need to be able to do is that now you're put to the test of creating orders for your friends and family, whether it be 10 friends and family or 20 friends and family in a short duration, a period of time, it allows you to work out your kinks. Also, you'd be surprised by how much and how supportive your friends and family are with your new venture. So definitely allow them to opportunity to help you out. And this group can be anyone, it could be your closest colleagues, it could be your classmates, or it could be the initial client avatar group that you use to test out this whole process in module one, lesson six. And it doesn't have to be a big group. Ideally, 10 to 20 people is our recommended amount of people because when they start to follow and like you, when they, when you start to create your process, you don't want it to max out to 30 people, or if it's only four or five people, it's within your comfort zone. So we want to be able to help you stretch your comfort zone, but not to that extent yet before you take additional orders from the public. Now, the two areas of focus when talking to your friends and family, and the two asks, okay, first is your final product hero or your hero product. And lastly, it is your Instagram, your account. So first, the hero products, right? So as a quick refresher in module one, lesson six, we talked about testing your product with a group of people. And at that stage, you only had that final recipe for your food product. We didn't focus on packaging, we didn't focus on the experience, we didn't focus on the designs. Whereas right now, you should have everything completed. This is your final, final product as if someone were to purchase from you. So this is what you're going to be showcasing to them. It's a good time to retest with this group because they've given you the feedback, they've given you what's good and what's not good. And now you tweaked it. Now you can get their final say about what they feel about your product. So it also allows you to be able live in making and fulfilling orders, get feedback on your final product. And this is all very, very key before you launch to the public. Because when you're launching to the public, you only have one chance, one chance to make an impression. Okay. And at this point in time, we're not telling you to make money or profit from your friends and family because you're actually getting feedback from them. You're actually getting very valuable insight with them. And that's the reason why I would calculate this and put this as part of your R&D costs, your research and development costs, you can sell the product to them at cost, tell them, hey, you know what, I just want to cover my costs. Can you help me out? Or if financially you're able to, then you should just give them the product, right? So then that way they feel happy. They feel like, Hey, you know what, in exchange for my time and my valuable insights, I get a free product to test out. So why not? Second area of focus is your Instagram account. We talk about instant proof all the time. And this is a great time to kickstart your Instagram account.  And it allows you to establish at least a kickstart and a small presence on your account before launching public, because you don't want people to see you with a zero followers, zero posts and zero likes. That's very, very, just doesn't look good on you. And that's the reason why just starting off small, it would be completely fine. You don't need thousands of followers for people to buy from you. And if only a couple hundred buy from you, you would already have a very, very sustainable business. Okay, now the five steps in reaching out to your friends and family. First, create a list. Second, is to select a platform for your communication. Third, create your copy. Fourth is the fulfillment details. And lastly, collect and organize all the responses. So then that way, you are ready to launch to the public. Now first step, create a list. And on a simple sheet, gather all your friends and families information. So then that way, it's so much easier for you to track everything. And as you can see right here on the on the graphic, put in their number, put in their name, put in their email address and delivery. What time are you going to deliver it to them? Or what time they're going to come and pick up? This is so much easier for you to track when you have everything in one place. And on top of that, if you have other partners who are operating your business with you, then you can tell them to fill in the same thing and to really be able to organize everyone you're reaching out to, because you're going to be gathering feedback from them. We don't want to send them feedback and not follow up with them. That's not a good practice. Okay. So that's the reason why having this list is very important. And once again, it's in the resources link down below so you can download it and use it to your advantage. Next up is to select your platform communication. Now for me, I prefer calling anytime, any day. I do not like to ask for a favor through either email or messaging because there's no personalization. There's no human to that, right? So especially when you're asking for a favor, definitely call your friends and family, catch up with them, and then you can ask them, hey, you know what? Do you remember last time you did the product testing for me? Hey, is it okay if I send you a new one, upgraded one? And I really want to be able to have your feedback because I value your opinion. That would be a really good segue into that because now that you're on the phone, it's so much easier to gauge whether they're even willing or wanting to help. Or if they're like, yo, I'm just so busy. I'm so sorry, I don't want to talk to you or something like that. Then you don't want to send them that message, right? Regardless of the fact, talking on the phone is always the best in my opinion, right? Also easier to give them context. If it's the first time you're reaching out to them, then tell them about your brand, tell them what you're trying to create, sell them on the vision and ask them for help. That's what you can do through phone. And that is something that is not able to replicate through either emails or text message, okay? You can follow up with a text message or an email after you have that phone conversation with them. And then what do you do? You create your copy. So for example, after you talk to them on the phone, you're like, Hey, and what, Wilson, I'm going to be sending you this, is that okay? And they said, yes, now it is time to create your copy. So then that way you can tell them exactly what you need them to do and clear instructions of how they can order, when they will be receiving their products, how they'll be receiving their products. So then, and what and where they can fill in their surveys for you, right? So these are all great informations with very, very clear instructions. So then that way nothing is going to fall through the cracks. And as you can see here, we already created a template of the copy that we wrote to reach out to our friends and family when we launched our Bulbasaur kit, which once again, is in the template down below, which you can download and use it to tweak to your own version. Also, when you're creating this copy, don't just copy and paste this, because this needs to be in your tone of voice, right?  He is not messing around or she's not messing around. She's taking it very, very seriously. However, at the same note, be yourself as well. Be authentic to how you talk in person professional, but be yourself because you don't want to lose that human touch to this whole experience. And again, if they say no to this, or if they continue to forget, don't be pushy, don't take it personal because everyone has their own battles that they're fighting with. So once again, they're doing you a favor, right? So it is not something that's mandatory.  So don't be pushy, even though they said yes and you emailed them a few times, they didn't respond. It's okay, right? Don't take it personally, right? Let them choose because whether they're comfortable or not, it is entirely up to them. Next up is after you talk about everything, the instructions, you need to have very, very clear call to action. What does that mean? That means what do you need from them? What action do you want them to do, right? Provide either your feedback through Google form or when do you need this item, everything by right? What do you want them to order from you? Everything that you need them to do, you need to be very explicit with your call to action because a lot of times people write a long email and you still don't know what you want them to do. We don't want that in this copy. We want to be very specific with what the call to action is. As you can see in the Bulbasaur kit email, you can once again go into the link, download it, and then use it to your advantage and tweak it to whatever way you shape or form that's suitable for your business. Now that they have got everything, right? It is time to plan out how you will fulfill all the products, whether it's delivery or pickup. Majority time I deliver all the kits to my friends and family mainly because they're doing me a favor. So why not? Also determine when you're going to be fulfilling the product. I would actually package and do all the delivery and fulfillment of the product on the same day because it really gives you a sense of, let's say if you get 10 orders that day, how it would it work and how would it feel driving around town or getting people to come and pick it up on a Sunday, right?  That's the reason why I want to be able to pull in all the orders for fulfillment in one or two days. Okay? Coordinate with which day works best for your friends and family. That's very, very important. Be able to work with their schedule. Once again, they're doing you a favor. Now it is time to collect and organize all your response. Okay? In the list below and in the link, you can actually download that document, use that document so then that way you can actually reach out to them after you have delivered the goods and after if the fact that they didn't respond after a week, then you know it is time to follow up. So then that way they don't forget.


So, there are basically two ways to win in business, you might say, or in marketing. Let's be more specific. One way is to win by being more attractive, more clever, more credible-looking, more persuasive. And I'll just call this the external way of winning. And yet, many of us don't feel fulfilled competing with that kind of, in that kind of way.  And so, it's a losing game, essentially. It's a finite game. Because you win sometimes, you lose sometimes, and in my opinion, it's not really connected to our life's deeper purpose, shall I say. So, the second way of winning in marketing is to care more for our audience than others are willing to care. Now, I know a lot of you are already working very hard. You already care so much. So I don't mean that you have to do even more, but what I'm saying is you have to demonstrate your care for your audience. And the way we do that is, well, one, we demonstrate our care through our content.  Some of you are watching this on Instagram live right now. That's how I record. Others are watching it elsewhere. But I've said this before, and I'll remind you, I never feel like starting these videos. I'm not going, gosh, I can't wait to start recording myself talking, you know, on screen and trying to be helpful and sound, you know, smart enough. No, I don't want to do this. But I show up regularly because I care. I care that my audience, you can hopefully be inspired and grow in ways that I believe is good for everybody. And I care also about my own creativity fitness.  No matter if I feel ready or not, or I never feel ready, by the way, you know, I can always be studying and working more and more on my ideas, so, but I'm here anyway. I just press Go Live and record it and then I'll just upload it elsewhere later. But I care enough to show up. It makes me feel fulfilled knowing that it might make a difference for one person what I'm saying one day. If not now, if nobody's watching it one day, someone will see it and I'm thinking about that person and sending my love and care to that person to you who is watching. So we care for, we demonstrate our care through our content consistency and also through the heartfelt presence of our content. However that looks to you, you don't have to look like the same way I look. But however you show up with authentic caring for your audience, do that on a consistent basis and they will see it. They will feel it. Number one, that's how we demonstrate care content. Number two, we demonstrate care by having conversations with them. What I mean is you have some people who follow you on Instagram or in your newsletter, email newsletter or, you know, elsewhere, YouTube, LinkedIn, whatever. Try to have as many conversations with them as you possibly can. In the first couple of years of my business, I was doing at least two to four conversations every month, one-to-one conversations with my audience, whoever I can find who is willing to talk with me, starting with my friends and then, you know, people who don't know me as well but I'm going to reach out to them and actually there were some months where I was doing two to three such conversations per week. I tried to have as many one-to-one conversations as I could with my audience to demonstrate my care. Not trying to sell them anything, not trying to pitch my services but genuinely interested in what they want and what their life is about and kind of what they're working on these days and what they're looking for, what kinds of resources might be helpful for them. Whether it's my thing or not. It could be something else I know or somebody else that I can refer to them. So the more such conversations you have, the more you hone your intuition about how to do excellent marketing to your audience. We call this market research but that's such a dry term. I'm going to just reframe it as caring for your audience. That's it through one-to-one conversations. And eventually as my audience grew, I started doing more group conversations for this kind of market research and so it kind of goes from there.  You're going to get more referrals. Even when you weren't trying to sell anything, you'll still get more referrals and you've honed your intuition so your marketing is even better. And so I guess that's all I want to say for now. We are playing with this method. We are playing an infinite game. It's not the finite game and I want to thank Simon Sinek for this idea of finite versus infinite games. We are not playing the finite game of trying to be more attractive, more persuasive, more clever, better ideas than the next person. That's exhausting. And ultimately, when you play the infinite game of caring more for your audience or demonstrating your care more for the audience than others are willing to, you naturally become more attractive, smarter, more connected to what the audience really wants and therefore more relevant and more resonant towards them. So I hope this is helpful. The world I dream of is those of us who are creators are not competing with each other with that kind of more followers, more attractive. No, we're playing an infinite game where all of us can win, each of us caring as much as we possibly can for our audience and therefore everybody wins. Our audience wins, our business wins and our souls win and our industry wins as well. So thanks for watching. Thank you for being here as part of my caring enough to watch this. I appreciate you. I'll see you in the next video.


Coach, how special is Sunday going to be for you getting to go back to Brown State? Well, I don't get back to Northeast Ohio much anymore, but I've been back there, got to coach there. It's always a special thing to be able to see family, friends, see my high school football coach. Spent a lot of time in that area and grew up there. So I've been in that stadium and been in the Old Memorial Stadium too. So it'll be cool. What was your favorite Browns memory growing up? Well, I think we're in college and we got to go up to the last game that they played at Memorial Stadium. They had to switch ends because people were pulling the bleachers and the row of bleachers came off or the chairs came off and they would just take them and bring them over everybody's head and then they dump them into the field and they kept having to flip ends because the rows of seats started building up. So that was pretty cool. What was the least favorite Browns memory growing up?  That was a big Bernie guy. Thoughts on board impressions?  And so obviously talented and I had a great career at Cincinnati and I shown to have some real good quickness and speed and showed up the other night. As you prepare for the Browns, you know, without Chubb now, is it kind of back to where you were to prepare for the Saints, just like where you're not chasing goals? Or do you kind of expect to see things that pretty well?  So we'll have to defend whatever they come out in, but they're going to have doing what they do predominantly, I would imagine just because of how good they are at it. Keys against the Watson, I guess getting there is maybe just half the battle. You got to get him on the ground. Well, he's got great play strength in the pocket. He saw his his length and play strength outside the pocket, his ability to scramble on third down to convert on those possession downs. He's got great play strength and shakes guys off at the waist and able to throw the football. I did Xavier, I respond this week in the last weekend, it was a little tough for him, but what did you see from him kind of bouncing back this week? Well, I mean, he had a good week, you know what I mean? That's kind of what he's been his whole career. I mean, he showed up there was drafted, competed and continued to work and, you know, sometimes that happens in this league and he'll get another opportunity. I mean, just one guy goes in, takes advantage of his opportunity and then we go from there.  I'm sorry. That's two people. Okay, you said it like that was one person. Yeah, good.  Yeah, we're clear. Good to go. When you play a team that builds their offensive identity on running the ball and your defense is built on stopping the run, is your goal then as a defense make them throw, make them do like be uncomfortable? No, I think it's just playing good defense.  Anybody home? Joe, you know, you just innocent bystander. I'm tweeting in actives. Good. I'm ready. Skoronsky. DeAndre, I guess how you feeling? How things looking for you this week? Feel good. You know, feel good. Feel good about everything going into this week. So, yeah. Kind of the same scenario as last week. Tested out and hopefully you'll be ready to go. I wouldn't say the same.  So I wouldn't say the same as last week.  Is it improved from last week or is it a completely different situation entirely? Yeah, it's not really more so improved or different situation. It's just, you know, the plan of me going into the game, you know, being able to play in my best. Yeah.  You know, I think, I think each situation is different depending on the player, what kind of player.  So, you know, just trust in, trust in the plan and, you know, just ready to go out. My number is called. What are you doing, DeAndre, when you're not on the practice field as far as back in progress still? Man, you know, it's a lot that still goes on.  So, you know, it's still a lot that goes on.  So, you will make the trip to Cleveland and have a chance to play, you think? Oh, yeah, absolutely. When last Sunday playing through? Oh, man.  And that's all that matters. Ryan and myself, we went four for five on, you know, targets to me. So, you know, I would say, you know, we won't win. So, it went well. For you personally, though, how did the ankle respond to a full game? Oh, man. You know, those guys did a good job of helping me get ready to play. And it's post game as well. So, it felt good, you know, going into the game and after the game as well.  So, you're going back to school to get your degree, why is that important to you to do that? Oh, man, it's important because, you know, I come from a family where not a lot of people graduated. And, you know, my father died when I was six months.   What's the degree? Excuse me? What's the degree? It's called PRT, Parks and Recreation Tourism Management. I always was interested in managing facilities and, you know, before I, you know, came to Nashville, I always wanted to put on music festivals and country music festivals growing up on country music. So, that was my interest in going into that degree of learning how to manage and facilitate, you know, things of that nature. How much more time do you have left and what's it like trying to juggle doing that and getting up with a playbook and being ready to play on Sundays? Oh, man, you know, well, you know, my teacher that I have now is very understanding of my schedule, which is amazing. And, you know, it's, I mean, look, I played in the system too, to kind of understand what's going on to where I'm still not, you know, having to learn to playbook every week. So that helps out as well. But, you know, it's, I would say it's pretty easy, man. It's not the most demanding major. I'm not going to law school. I think somebody maybe screen recorded you being in the Zoom sessions this week. What's the reaction been like of fellow students when they see the Iyer Hopkins doing Zoom class from a locker room? I mean, I really haven't had anyone message me outside of the message board in class.  But, you know, I hope they don't get in any trouble. You know, I'm pretty sure they didn't mean anything by just being excited to see me. So hopefully, you know, there's no punishment against them, even though I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Your teammates think it's pretty cool and you got pretty much pretty good support pursuing that. Yeah, man. I think, you know, I don't think I do it for the support or validation of anyone but myself and my father and my mom. The fishing clearing was today. So I had to get through some practices, make sure that I feel good and then meet with the doctors and neuro doctors and they clear me from there. So you had the same situation last year, intensified the process to clear the issue? I mean, it's all about how I feel. I mean, last year was a little different. Last year was a little more serious concussion. This time it wasn't as bad. So it's just all about how you feel. I think some guys, it could take longer than others. But fortunately, this time that I'm able to come back pretty quick. I'm very, very happy. I'm able to feel the way I do right now. I'm very fortunate as well that I'm able to feel good a week and a half, almost two weeks after the hit. So I mean, no rush really. I mean, just got to be able to come back and make sure I'm healthy. I want to come back too early and then I'll just put the team at Jeopardy and myself. Is your, you know, concussions are so talked about now and it's potentially dangerous.  Not really.  They got good protocol and the good staff here. And like I said, good protocol around the league to where that they wait until the brain is healed first in order for you to go out there, which limits that long-term effect. It seems like, it seems now like almost always players will miss at least the game. Whereas years ago, a lot of times, a good thing. Is that kind of what you're referencing? Yeah, exactly.  That's, that's the main thing. That's how you don't get those long-term effects is by not keeping your brain up week after week after week. When it happened, did you recognize it yourself or were you pulled out? Just kind of what was the protocol started? I recognized it myself. Obviously, I went down. I started feeling a little pressure in my head. And then from there, it's they control everything from there. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, for me, it's practice has always been important to me. If you don't do it in practice, it's going to be hard for you to do it in the game. So a lot of the stuff that I've been doing in camp, I think he's preparing me for this year and, you know, ready for this week. He plays a lot of impact. Great quarterback. I played him multiple times, my first couple years when he was in Houston.  He's a playmaker guy. He can make all the throws.


Yeah, this is the presentation about the Osmo-com BTS hardware support, which is a presentation I am doing together with Alexander, who is, ah, I was looking at you, where you were sitting before, it's like, oh, the chair is empty, where is he going, he's right here, yeah. So I'm going to do the introductory part and talk about mostly the more classic BTSs and then Alexander is taking over for the Osmo Tier X related BTSs, because that's really his, if he has way more information or way more understanding than I have. So I have tried to draw a slide or a graph using my favorite slide drawing tool called Dotty, and I tried to show all the different supported BTS models. So actually, it's too wide to really put, even with this writing on a single slide, but this is basically all the different BTSs that we support, try to fit that on one slide. This is also already in the wiki, I already put it in the Osmo-com wiki, so they can review it in more detail. So in general, we have two classes of BTSs that we support. We have the classic E1T1-based BTSs that are illustrated there, and we have the IP-based BTSs on the left-hand side. Most people are these days, of course, focusing on IP-based BTSs, but still I'd like to include those E1-based, because there might actually still be some use, because you can get quite professional grade E1-based BTSs second-hand very inexpensively these days. And that's also where we started, so we started with E1T1-based BTSs, and we have support for basically three different vendors or dialects of the AVIS interface. I'm not claiming we can support all the Siemens or all the Ericsson-based stations, or all the Nokia ones, but these are sort of the models that we have successful testing with, and particularly in the Ericsson case, I'm quite convinced that almost all of the RBS 2000 BTSs should work, because they all have the same protocol architecture. And in terms of advantages or disadvantages, if we look at this, right, on the pro side for these old E1T1-based devices, well, you get them very inexpensively from decommissioned sites, and that doesn't mean, I mean, you have to chase individual people who de-install or decommissioned BTSs, but there's an entire market and there are suppliers such as Shields-E or PowerStorm or however they're called, basically companies that do nothing else but sell refurbished or second-hand telecom-grade equipment, and they have huge databases and catalogs, what they have currently in stock and so on. So, and you can get like really large capacity, so up to 12 TRX, which I think no IP-based BTS that I know supports, whether open-source or not, you can get really high RF output power built into the devices themselves. As said, you can get like 40 or even more watts, a rugged mechanical build, mean time to failure. Of course, they're also used and they might not always be an advantage, because well, they've been running for quite some time. Anyway, yeah, on the con side, well, it's a bit antiquated. Not many people are familiar with the technology even to, let's say, install E1T1 lines and to debug them and to analyze issues, and it's not so nice. Also, in terms of interfaces, you just don't have an E1 port on your laptop. And even in a lot of embedded devices, if you think of very popular embedded Linux devices, nothing has anything where you have an E1 port. So, you end up having to have a device that has PCI Express slots and have to have PCIe cards for the E1 interface. So, it's not that nice. Power consumption also tends to be really high, of course, because it's old equipment where efficiency was not such a key aspect and also the technology was not as advanced to have that efficiency. And then also the very old models, like the Siemens PS11, for example, they don't have EGPS, so there's no 8PSK support or no AMR codec because the design of these devices predates adaptive multirate. So, how does this actually look like? I have to bring this up. A lot of people will know it already, but this is actually two Siemens PS11 base stations at the Hacking at Random Camp 2009. And this is the professional antenna installation. No red tape here. No pun intended. And so, well, that's basically was the first deployment of OpenVSC at the Hacking at Random Camp 2009. And here you can see all the cabling coming down from the antennas. So, we had an E1 backhaul over Cat5 cable to OpenVSC running in a tent. I'm not showing the tent. So, we have some other devices that we support over time. There's the RBS-2308, for example, as many other RBS-2000 models, also RBS-2111. And this is actually a picture like you can find it on eBay right now today for, I think, like, $300, $500 or so. And it has 40RX already inside, you know. It's a pretty good price point. That's of course the IPS NanoPCS. This is an old one. There's more modern ones. And that's already getting into the IP-based world. So, yes, they're PoE-enabled and so on. You can deploy them. You can get them in GPRS only or EGPRS-enabled models, band specific and so on and so on. But of course, like all the previous ones I described, the BTS and or people, in this case, the PCU is also inside is proprietary. And not everybody has been quite happy with that for all kinds of reasons. And the number one reason even is that lots of crashes and no way to fix it. So, yeah, but it is one supported option. Also, there's no fully dynamic channels, which we support in the Osmo BTS-based devices these days. So some features. Then you have lots of system of BTS devices. I don't want to talk too much about them. It's like the different devices we have and the capabilities, which as we have described before, use Osmo BTS and Osmo PCU. There's something from a company called Neuran, Neuran Light Cell 1.5, which is a Tenwa 2 TRX outdoor BTS, which has a specific port of Osmo BTS. It's called the Osmo BTS Light Cell 15, because we don't want dots in the executable names, which interfaces with the proprietary physical layer using a shared memory queue. And we have Osmo PCU, which pretty much does the same in that device. And this is in master mainline of the repositories. So this is not some fork of the code, but it is on gitosmo.com.org. There is Octasic boards. This basically, it's various different, basically SDR boards with proprietary physical layer running in an Octasic-specific DSP. We actually have a port of Osmo BTS that can run on that. That's the Osmo BTS OctFi, if you've ever seen that somewhere, by compiling or configuring the code. It talks over Unix domain, socket to the Osmo PCU for GPS support. And there's a series of different boards, which have different number of DSPs, number of radio interfaces and so on. You can check the manufacturer if that's something that you're interested in. As far as I know, maybe I'm wrong. And please correct me if I'm wrong. EGPRS is not working yet due to some issues with the integration on the PCU side. Is that correct, Philip? Yeah, yeah, okay. That's still the case. Also, I think not all voice codecs are supported. The GSM supports at the moment, but otherwise it is like any other Osmo BTS supported device. And that's where I'm coming to my end of file and handing over to Alexander for the Osmo TRX and Osmo BTS TRX supported devices. Okay, yeah, so now let's talk about software-defined radio or more DIY way of playing with Osmo COM and all the way to production. So for those who don't know what software-defined radio is, so software-defined radio is the easiest way to describe that it's a sound card for radio waves. So the same way a sound card takes digital signal on your computer, produces sound waves. Software-defined radio takes digital signals on your computer and it produces radio waves. That's the basic way how it works. So the way it interfaces with the Osmo COM stack is that, so you have this hardware, which is software-defined radio, right? And it is talking to the radio part of the system. And on the other hand, it is taking the digital signal into computer and talking to all of this software on the computer where UHD is a driver basically, which is working with the multiple versions of software-defined radios and then providing a single API to a software called Osmo TRX. And Osmo TRX is implementing what's called layer zero or lower layer one, which is basically doing modulation, demodulation and producing bursts of soft beats. Then they are going to Osmo BTS, which is implementing layer one, layer two. And after Osmo BTS, it's the same familiar Osmo COM stack as with every other architecture. So a small overview of SDR hardware available currently for Osmo TRX. So two most popular by my personal assessment are looking at the like mailing list and talking to people. So is our young TRX, which was designed specifically for GSM. And by the way, a laboratory version of this is open source hardware with all the sources published. So it's open source hardware device. And the second one is a USRP B200, which is just a very popular software-defined radio in general. That's why many people are using it with Osmo COM just because they already have it. And there is a bunch of others like USRP one was the very first one ever used for GSM, now no longer manufactured and sold. And then there is like USRP and 200, which are more expensive, we usually use in laboratories embedded devices, recently LIME SDR was supported, which is a new USB based low cost SDR. So X-Tricks, which is a new generation of SDR, we are developing currently, it's will be available soon. So an answering to two popular questions. So Blade-RF and HAC-RF are not supported currently for different reasons, HAC-RF is half-duplex, so it's not possible to support it because base station must be full-duplex. Blade-RF technically should work, but there was no work done to actually implement the NOS material. So patches are welcome, if there are Blade-RF funds, welcome to submit patches for this. So if you're looking to get a new SDR for you, so there are several parameters you should be looking for and should understand to make sure you are, you're getting what you're expecting. So the most important part and the biggest issues you will be facing is clock accuracy. So according to the standard, clock accuracy of GSM cells must be 50 ppb or 0.00 ppm, which is parts per million for macro cells or 0.1 for small cells and for Pico cells. So that's quite accurate clock, let's put it this way. So this is required if you want to build network with Handover, for example. So in practice, if you're doing lab testing with a single base station, 200 ppbs or 400 ppbs, apart from a billion, that should be okay, as long as you don't do Handover. Most phones will work. For the death, there is no guarantee. Some phones will work, some phones will not work. Some phones will kind of work and then fail. It's like no guarantee space. The problem is that most commercially available SDRs out there has accuracy of 1.2 ppm, which is like an order of magnitude worse. So what this means is that this is basically heat and mist for you. If you are working in the laboratory at fixed temperature because clock drifts a lot due to temperature, if it's fixed temperature and you calibrated it, may work for a while, may stop working next day. If you're getting on a street, it will stop working again, so it's heat and mist. And you will also depend on, okay, so this unit works, this unit doesn't work because they have different crystals with different initial accuracy due to manufacturing differences. So, and this applies to all users of SLIME SDRs, Blade or F, so pretty much to all of them. So what to do in this case, you have basically two options or like three options. So first of all, you can use external clock. So if you have another stable clock, maybe from your signal generator and laboratory or just a static clock, you can use this as a clock source to look on it. Or you can get GPS DO, for example, ATOS is selling GPS DO specifically for their users, and then you have to put in 10 and get look to GPS signal to synchronize. Or you have to regularly calibrate towards using some other external clock source. And this problem was actually the reason why we started YUMTRAX project back in 2008, I think, or 2009, because we were completely stuck with this issue. We created our own clock, then we started creating our own SDR. And so YUMTRAX is again, the only popular SDR I know of, which has a clock, which is 0.1 ppm stability by itself plus GPS. So you can get even lower to 50 ppb with GPS lock, which means that you won't have this problem at all. So next thing is clock rate. So GSM symbol clock rate is 13 divided by 48 megahertz. And ideally, you want to avoid fractional resampling, makes signal slightly worse, adds a lot of CPU consumption. It's not the worst thing ever. For example, user, and even though it has a 50 megahertz clock, which requires fractional resampling still generates a good signal, many people are using it in their labs, better to have integer. So again, if you are choosing something for your experimentation, better to have something like YUMTRAX or B200, which has a flexible clock rate, so it adjusts to your requirements. In other two points, first of all is interface. So there are three interfaces for different software defined radios, first is USB, which is like user pb200 and LIME-SDR, other is Ethernet, it's YUMTRAX, and the different versions of USURBS and PCI Express, again, for upcoming DixTrick. So USB is very handy when you are doing development and specifically if you are using your laptop and you're moving, so you just plug in and it works very nice. On the other hand, there's a lot of issues with USB if you try to run it in production for month of runtime, various issues with USB. So that's why, again, Ethernet is much more handy if you are doing something long-run related. I'll put the refpower, now there are popular questions, so people are buying SDRs and they're like, oh, my SDR is not covering more than a couple meters, so what do I do, right? So first of all, a thing to note is that there are very low power SDRs, then DBM is basically 10 milliwatts and some of them even go lower, so B200, E300, LIME-SDR are all in this wallpark, and there are SDRs which have higher power, so again, Euntricks, user pn200 have higher power, so with low power, you'll get like a few meters, less than 10 meters, definitely. With these guys, you can get like 100 meters, 200 meters depending on configuration antenna or whatever, so. Radio front end, another thing to keep in mind when talking about radius is like the coverage is what is your radio front end, because again, this is just 100 milliwatts out of here, so and even if you have 100 milliwatts in some cases you don't need duplexer, in some cases you don't need duplexer, so what is duplexer? So duplexer is device which actually combines transmitter and sieve signals and separates them, so to make sure that your transmit signal is not blinding your receive signal because if you have too strong transmit signal your receiver will listen all this noise and will not be actually able to receive low power signal from phones, so if you are adding any power amplifier, duplexer is basically a must for you and another thing, and the LNA is low noise amplifier, the same on the receive side, so this ties back to what Harold was talking about the path loss calculations and how it's called, the sensitive CVT and all the stuff, so this is what affects it, right? So and this is how it looks like, for example in our base station, so this is our base station like inside, so this is the SDR, this is the PC and this are two power amplifiers because it's a dual channel base station, so the power amplifiers and this block is low noise amplifier plus duplexer, so you can see that, so this cable is going into like from the SDR into power amplifier, so here it gets out of power amplifier, amplified goes into here and then goes into duplexer inside and this is antenna, so from TX it goes to antenna here, then on the other way it gets from antenna inside, goes to here, this which is receive port and then go through like low noise amplifier here and then into the SDR, so that's how it looks like. Yeah, the same picture like layered, so another reason why you do care about duplexers when you're putting amplifiers is that you should filter out all the noise you will be producing in the spectrum and I request that if you put an amplifier, don't put it into operation unless you have good equipment to check that you actually filtered out all the noise, because this is a signal which we, for example, transmit at what's that, 826 megahertz, which is I think in 850 band for North American GSM band and as you can see, this signal also has the second spore at 2.4 gig, which will basically completely interfere with your Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, whatever you're running in 2.4. So unless you filter this out, this will be in the spectrum and it will be high-powered, the difference between one and two is only 2.4 gig, only 10 dB. So if you are putting like 10 watt amplifier, you will be like one watt at this, which is like a lot. So please don't do that. Okay, so now to the actual configuration. Well, actually you can read all of this in the documentation, but basically there are very few parameters of receive gain, transmit attenuation. Again, we are transmitting attenuation, not the power. A max delay is basically the radius of the cell. Everything else is not so important. These are the parts which you have to really care of and a mass power loop also make sure you're doing this right. So Osmoeterics has no VTI, no file configuration, only command line options, but in most cases, you just need to, you can just run it with no parameters or when you mean all parameters, minus G just enables GPSDO lock for user P. Otherwise, it's very straightforward to run initially. If you want more channels, specify minus M, with B210, there's no M because it's already dual channel. And that's basically it for now. Again, slides will be published if you want to read them in more details, you are welcome to do so. Okay, thanks. Slightly, do we have questions? Again, we are slightly behind schedule, so but still one or two questions I think we can take. Okay, so just about the Blade RF, does it, I believe that works with Yate BTS, right? Which I, is that I? That's my understanding as well. So, yeah, so basically Yate, so initially Osmoeterics is a fork of code from OpenBTS, so OpenBTS transceiver was forked and we created Osmoeterics and added much more features, optimizations and whatnot. So Yate BTS has another fork, but I guess the code base is kind of compatible. So again, if there is anyone interested in Blade RF support, you can take a look at Yate BTS code and try to adapt it to the existing Osmoeterics code base should be reasonably doable. Hi, just a small question. This is regarding, I think, a 2G. Is some project or some plan to do compatible the Osmo UMTS project with SDR boards? Well, so there is OpenBTS UMTS, which is outside of OsmoCom project, which is a completely separate open source project. It supports SDRs, like our UMTS is supported, the user PISA supported. I mean, you can try it. It's not very stable, it's definitely far behind stability in terms of, compared to OsmoCom projects. So Thomas wanted to ask something or comment something. So Thomas is actually the maintainer of OsmoTRX, so. So regarding the OpenBTS UMTS, my understanding is most of the development on that now is no longer in the public open. Range Networks is still operating a business there, but they have a commercial version that's internal and we don't know what the status of that is. So for anyone interested, you would have to contact them for that information. And also speaking from the other research side, I'm not aware of anyone working or in progress on doing anything in terms of UMTS layer one, so to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, like my personal understanding is that UMTS is going to die way before 2G and LT will just take over. So there's a lot of going activities in 4LTs, there's a lot of activities for GSM. UMTS is kind of just declining. Thanks for the welcome. Haha, yeah.