Good evening everyone and welcome to the stocks will show live after hours It is 719 eastern time and 19 seconds exactly. Oh make a wish Okay. All right, so it's t2 t2 Here's some love from the stocks wash. I'm giving you one for tomorrow T2 gap down. I like the gap. It's good. It's a short for tomorrow on May 14 So right now. This is a live live gap. It's happening in the real time It's at 1978 It closed today at 2062 and 900 so you see this here. Okay, this is what this is doing actually 9,000 So this is what this is doing right here in this moment from the close at four o'clock eastern time But then the stock is gapping. Okay, this is a gap. So let's just take it back Here There that's where the stock close right where my jiggy is and then it's here This is good So I didn't rate this I usually wait until the morning to read stuff That's just what I like to do my mind is fresh and clear And I can look at everything very very good in the morning fact. I was talking about this today I said, you know what in the morning? I'm a morning person. I'm up. I'm fresh and alert I'm rested. I'm ready to go have my breakfast I have you know all time in the world to think and by the end of the day people are usually tired The brains are tired. Their eyes are tired. I can see things clear in the morning My instinct is better in the morning my intuition is better in the morning I'm so grateful that I actually trade in the real-alive time zone of the stock market Which is an eastern time zone because if I traded too early in the morning or too late at night I would be in a totally different body clock And if you aren't a different time zone get your body clock in a space where you are prime and prepped and ready to go at the Time that the market is actually opening between 9 30 and the open And he was teaching a good gap for tomorrow. So here it is. Here you go. Boom. I did not rate this yet I know that it's gonna rate good per my 26 point rating system and the 26 point rating system means Not that you have to get 26 points. Oh, there you go. There you see it here This is how close today. It means that it gets 20 points or more for the 26 point rating system That's what it means. You're not looking for a perfect score Although there are some guts to get very perfect scores or close to perfect But you're looking for a good score at 20 points or more score 20 points is a lot of things for stock to be getting and I can see right now But this is gonna get it without even rating it although they're doing exactly the point, but there's a good gap Let's look at the whole thing It's a weird chart Stock was down down down. It was a long time ago Over ten years stock rally rally was making new highs. It's all back 2000 for 2005 Stock came in came in hard turned turned big time tried to make a correction here broke again and then finally Followed through higher here for a very short period of time. This is 2008 And then really this fell off a planet here the scat that happened back here. It was September 16 2008 broke this chart fell fell off a planet stated down trying 2009 2010 2011 2012 and into 2013 now. I want to point this out This is unusual But the stock actually turned here and did a full-on correction That was it. Oh my gosh. I'm so good at finding these things So in July last year the stock corrected itself and did a corrective gap back up to an uptrend Okay, so there and there it is now. This is into this year 2014 But the stock is gapping down now tonight And it's real It's real. I mean and this stock can actually have Big moves if it wants to on a day this bar here. It's a nice bar It's a little more than a dollar and this is going to have a good entry and a good stop It's not going to be too spreading And uh, this is very uh, uh, very nice gap to play intraday Where it happens from here and people have to watch to see it because this is a really interesting chart It just did the correction not just it. I mean did it last year But you know for this to be gapping down right now is actually not exactly what you want to see Particularly because it just did the correction last July, but it's real. This is gapping down It's a good stock to trade lower tomorrow as a short. So there you go some love from the stock switch tonight I'll work on the rating tomorrow morning in the live trading room. I'll work on the resistance I'll work on the targets I'll figure out all the exact numbers how to take this and see what it does And you never know because this actually could be gapping a completely different number tomorrow morning and it probably will Uh, whether it will be better or worse. You never know I mean sometimes you get up in the morning You see a nighttime gap and it looks worse in the morning and sometimes looks better in the morning And that can change the things and that's why actually I typically wait to do the targets and their resistance to the morning So there you go. Here's some love for the stock switch show fans out there. I'm giving it to you tomorrow G2 is a good golden gut and it's a short short it This is melissa with the stock switch dot com have a wonderful fantastic. Give me to everyone I uh added a class for this month actually this weekend may 17th and 18th If you really want to learn how to treat and you really want to make money in the market You you've got to take the class to learn how You can email me if you want to sign up. I still spots available It's melissa at the stock switch dot com and I'll say one last thing I'm going to talk about this in the webinar. That's tomorrow night. Actually at 4 30 eastern time Uh, the webinar is an online trader central you can go there and sign up They're talking more about gaps, but I'll say one last thing here tonight I do not believe and I'm being completely honest here There's any way to consistently make money day trading other than trading gaps There's no other strategy out there that works irregardless of market direction And you don't have to read the market right to get the gap right you can trade the gap in its own You get them every single day you get gaps to look at now Whether or not they rate 20 points or more you go through the process of the system to look at it But you get enough on any monthly basis in earnings season or non-earning season to make a living out of gaps I think the only way to be profitable to consistently make money trading In the market as one individual as a day trader I'm talking about as a day trader is to trade gaps and I've looked at every strategy out there I think this is the only strategy that has the level of profitability and consistency to actually make real money Uh over the course of time and I've proven that now because I'm doing this for six years And I'm only doing it in one direction But I'm only doing one strategy and I've looked at a lot of other ones and they come and go and they're 50 50 And they don't have the profitability in them gaps are reliable for lots of reasons It's mostly because of the institutional Selling or buying that creates these gaps that makes them work Okay, and I found a method to pinpoint to pinpoint him down to get them to be very very picky To say i'm going to do this one on the dead because that's really all you need one good gap That's all you need you only need to do one good gap one good trade. That's it That's all you need to do And you've got to find a way to find the good ones because there's so many things every morning that got a million a billion And you got to pinpoint it down But I just thought I'd say that because it's having a conversation with someone today that was talking about a million strategies And and i'm saying this now i'm putting it out there My belief system is that there is no way to actually make a living As a day trader in the stock market as an individual trader Unless you're actually doing gaps and many people don't do gaps. Well, they don't understand them They just don't get it. They're doing the wrong things. We're doing the opposite of me. They just don't get it I can tell you right now people are going to try to buy this guy. I can I can just like I see Everything this is doing. I know people make an attempt to buy this guy. It is not a buy It is a short a short a short So get up tomorrow morning look at t2 and if you'd like more information on trading gaps You can email me at melissa at the stockswish.com. It's a post market review of t2 And so i'm giving it to the people I love. Thanks everybody for following me and have a wonderful fantastic evening


You see that?  That's it. That's it. That's it. That's it. That's it. That's it. That's it. That's it.


I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Adam Brandt. He's an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford, and he's also the principal investigator conducting carbon capture systems analysis as part of GSEP. It's called Comparing Exergy Efficiency and Electricity Costs of Various Technology Options. Overall, his research focuses on reducing the greenhouse gas impacts of energy production and consumption with a particular focus on fossil energy systems. His research includes life cycle assessment of petroleum production and natural gas extraction, particularly related to unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands, oil shale, and hydraulically fractured oil and gas resources. He also is a specialist in computational optimization of emissions mitigation technologies, and he came to us after he completed his PhD at UC Berkeley. So please join me in welcoming Adam Brandt. All right. So thank you, Sally. Thanks for inviting me to speak, and thank you everyone in the audience for coming to hear this talk. This is fun for me because this is a chance to talk about some research that I've been working on for the last three years with a couple of my students, Stuart Sweeney-Spitz, and Yuchi Sun, and also with Able Co-PI in the form of Chris Edwards. We're going to touch on some thermodynamics in this. If any of you know Chris, you will know where to lay the blame for any mistakes in thermodynamics. Hint, it's not with him, it's probably with me. Just some motivation for what we're thinking about here. Applying CCS at scale, that is at the sort of gigaton scale to mitigate CO2 emissions or mitigate climate damage would almost certainly require economy-wise shifts in material and energy flows. This is the case because massive amounts of material are moved in our fossil energy system. Obviously designs for CO2 capture equipment should minimize capital investment, minimize material consumption, and perhaps most importantly minimize the energy penalties associated with the separation and storage of CO2. Importantly, we also want to avoid unintended consequences maybe framed as backfire elsewhere in the economy or biosphere. That is we don't want to institute large-scale changes over the course of decades and then discover that there are sort of secondary or ancillary side effects that we weren't aware of. Therefore, to meet these goals I believe that properly assessing CCS technologies requires one, understanding economy-wide environmental impacts, and two, being able to compare diverse environmental outcomes across different media and different time scales. Our analysis here, although it's applied to CCS, we think is a pretty groundbreaking new approach to basically satisfy both of these goals for a technology. As far as goal one, in terms of achieving an economy-wide perspective, the methodology we're going to use is called life cycle assessment. Life cycle assessment is a technique that's been under development for some decades to model economy-wide environmental impacts from a technology by tracking flows of natural resources and pollutants transferred between the economy and the ecosystem. Here we've got an example supply chain here on the left where we have, for example, coal mine that's sent into a coal transport system, let's say via rail, and then to a power plant. This supply chain sort of spiders out, and for example we have diesel fuel, steel, and lubricants are consumed in coal transport, and to make steel we needed to input iron ore and coal. You'll note there that this chain has fed back on itself, only two orders were moved from sort of the initial supply chain. It's actually a little problematic that the term supply chain has entered the popular sort of terminology or sort of popular mindset because all of these chains mathematically are much more akin to supply sort of webs that feed back on themselves, and mathematically you can show that that's the case, quite profoundly self-interact. So goal two, we want to compare diverse environmental impacts, so sort of goal one was saying let's cast our net across the entire economy. Goal two is to compare diverse environmental impacts. We need to think about is this resource going to have impacts on water versus air? Is this resource or this technology going to have impacts now or in the future? Is this going to have, for example, chronic or acute health or ecosystem impacts, right? And so there's lots of dimensions along which environmental impacts can vary and trying to quantitatively and rigorously compare and value these is a decade's old problem in the world of environmental assessment. Many schemes have been proposed. There's probably five of them in common use, mostly in Europe for regulatory purposes for product manufacturing standards and sustainability standards. There's a variety of schemes proposed. I would say the generous way to put it is that consensus is lacking, except it's actually really hard to rigorously understand how you should trade these things off. We have a project with the Woods Institute in collaboration with a, just as an example, in collaboration with civil engineering professor where we're looking at co-minimizing energy use and toxic byproduct formation from MEA based capture systems because as it turns out monoethanolamine based capture can release highly carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds into watersheds nearby the power plant, right? And so this is this water versus air sort of trade off. Exergy for at least 30 years, and I'm sure before that, has been proposed as a unifying thermodynamic measure of potential harm from effluence. I would say my perspective is that exergy is likely the only contender out there for a sort of a unified scientific approach to rigorously comparing these. And it has many virtues and this has literally been discussed as I said for decades. It's not clear that all the issues have been solved, but to me it's really where the action probably is. Just to explain a little bit about exergy. Exergy is, you know, you can think about it in many ways, one of which is the maximum work that can be extracted from a system, a thermodynamic system, where the system contains something that you might call a resource which is out of equilibrium with an environment or a reference environment, okay? So in this case the resource could be a natural resource such as coal or it could be a waste stream that is out of equilibrium with the environment. It's a measure of the potential for change as the resource equilibrates with the assumed unchanging sort of background environment. It's also the useful part of energy. Another sort of unfortunate set of terminology is that when most people in sort of common parlance talk about energy, almost always what they're actually talking about is exergy because that's the sort of stuff that you can use up. My car is out of energy. I don't have any energy, right? That's the useful part of energy is what we actually care about and we all know the total quantity of energy is actually conserved while exergy isn't. Exergy comes in various flavors and is variable depending on the nature of the disequilibrium between the resource and the environment. If the resource is higher than your reference environment then your resource contains gravitational potential exergy and so on. So the exergy content of flows can be envisioned this way. We can define something called a process which is here just sort of this gray box here. The process takes in two forms of flows. It can take in natural resources from the environment. We have our environment up here in the upper left and it can take in other inputs from other parts of the economy. Each of these mass flows can have some temperature, pressure, Gibbs free energy of formation, more concentration, elevation and velocity, things like this. You can use those terms to basically here on the right I'm obviously not going to go over the equation but you can basically use those terms to compare the various forms of exergy that these inputs have relative to your reference environment. The process then spits out two types of products. One of which are waste here on the top, those go back towards the environment and the other is the product output which is then traded elsewhere in the economy or used in other economic processes. So for our sort of conception here a process is something that takes in exergy in the form of natural resources and other products and outputs exergy in the form of products and waste. The outputs are always strictly less than or equal to the inputs, actually strictly less than in a real system because all real processes destroy exergy. So methods, so in order to integrate these two perspectives we wanted to generate an economy-wide exergy model. We used something called the eco-invent life cycle analysis data set. It's a product of the early 90s from the Swiss ETH system that's since been spun out. It's a connected set of physical flows between 10,000 different processes representing the global economy and 1,700 flows of waste and resources coming into the economy from the environment, waste coming out of the economy into the environment. So you can see here sort of this conception on the left or on the upper right. We have the eco-sphere out here. We have the techno-sphere where process one is pulling some natural resources from the eco-sphere and emitting some waste. Those resources are processed and sent through sub-processes or sort of downstream processes, all of which emit some waste to the environment. These two approaches have never been unified before because it's actually fairly complex. You need it to have a lot of information to compete the exergy of a flow and these data sets are very complicated. A big advance developed by my student Stuart was a way to basically pre-analyze in this 10,000 by 10,000 process model of the economy, pre-analyze analog technologies, sort the impacts by their magnitude or their potential magnitude and basically filter them so we actually only need to compute exergy for a relatively small number of processes, hundreds rather than tens of thousands. And after that we generated an exergy conversion matrix which has very detailed sort of exergy values or exergy intensities for some flows, but the vast majority of flows and this is not to scale. The vast majority of flows are modeled as sort of average typical stuff. Interestingly, the industrial metabolism metaphor, if you guys heard that, is surprisingly accurate. If you sort of look at the results for demanding something from the economy from this model, what the economy does is basically taking carbon, taking minerals, and taking air and emit to first order warm, slightly warm wastewater with slightly higher concentrations of some elements in it and breathes out warm CO2 containing exhaust. And to first order, this looks like something an organism would do. And so we can get something like 99.99999% of the mass flow with the top few hundred processes because really that's kind of what the economy does. My student Yuchi soon took over from Stuart to analyze a baseline CCS system. He analyzed the NETL baseline CCS system from the National Energy Technology Lab. We modeled and sized all the reactors in great detail to generate a really detailed materials bill. Here's the sort of process diagram from the DOE report. Here's our end result. He's basically chemical engineering models to sort of size and parameterize the reactors and we tried to make this sort of equal to the standard NETL plant because this is commonly used in the CCS world. So just some results. So this is the baseline system. This is the baseline NETL system without CO2 captured. So this is just normal coal. Over the life of the planet, it takes in about 1,300 petajoules of natural resource exergy. Most of this, the vast majority of this, is in the form of chemical exergy of coal but also exergy of ores, iron ores to make steel, and other input materials. This exergy is then partitioned into three categories. Output electricity that we care about. That's the yellow bar. That's the sort of final product. The exergy content of waste flows. The things it's putting out in the environment. And then a very large term of exergy destruction. Again, this is not an ideal or reversible process. So there is exergy destruction involved. We're now going to attach the CCS system to it. What we see here is the required inputs of natural resource. Exergy increased significantly. The electric output stays the same because it's been normalized and the waste bar here on the right, in the case of CCS, only drops slightly. The outplant higher heating value efficiency reported in the NETL baseline for coal was about 37%, dropping to about 26% when we had CCS. Taking an economy-wide exergy efficiency, and what this means is this is the exergy content of the electricity sold by the plant. The plant gate or sort of the bus bar where it interacts with the grid. Divided by the exergy content of all natural resources brought into the plant directly in the form of coal and directly in the form of iron ore and everything else, there is required to build and operate that plant. And you can see these economy-wide exergy efficiencies drop to 23% and 17% when you go to without and with CCS. And in fact, we had to expend 50 units of natural resource exergy for every unit of pollution reduced. This is where we were as of a few months ago, three to six months ago, and this is not a very encouraging result. We decided to dig into what was happening here. As it turns out, huge amounts of more material, including 12 million tons of coal over the life of the plant, need to be consumed to, additionally, the CCS system, the non-CCS system, which results in parasitic emission of CO2 elsewhere in the economy that claws back some of the benefit of capture, and also results in additional waste heat emissions to water and air and additional other air pollution than CCS. But that's not the whole story, and I don't actually think this is the real story. Exergy actually measures disequilibrium of a resource with an unchanging reference environment. So the mental model here is you've got some resource, and it's interacting with some reference environment. It can interact chemically, let's say, oxidize and form reference species. It can dissipate out into the atmosphere, right? And eventually, it doesn't change the reference environment, but it's essentially been lowered thermodynamically down to this equilibrium condition, this unchanging condition. This is a really poor model of what we actually care about for CO2. CO2 builds up over centuries and changes the reference environment. Current CO2 emissions around the planet are around 1,000 metric tons per second, day in, day out. Over a century, this has caused the effective reference environment to change. This changes the energy balance of Earth's highly driven, highly non-equilibrium climate system. The Earth, as it stands now, is massively, massively thermodynamically uphill, right? And this is the way I think about it. I don't know if that's the right term Chris could probably specify that more carefully. That is sort of an alien sitting in his spaceship at the edge of the solar system could look at the Earth, and they would say something funny is going on here. There's lots of oxygen, there's lots of other stuff that we wouldn't expect if this system were sort of in a long-term thermodynamic equilibrium, all that oxygen would be sucked up, forming mineral and metal oxides, forming CO2. It would look much closer to Mars or Venus, right? And so Earth is this sort of thermodynamically, it's not in its ground state. Also, CO2 affects ecosystems, and it's really not clear that exergy is the right way to think about that. So we're proposing, and this is where I, if I'm gonna go off the rails, this is where I'll go off the rails, and so Chris hasn't seen this stuff yet, and he's my thermodynamics guru, so I'm just a brown belt, and he's sort of the samurai master. So he can offer some advice here. I'm proposing augmenting this with a time-integrated exergetic impact. What I'm gonna do here is highly first order because this is sort of a non-equilibrium thermodynamics problem of possibly the most challenging type you could ever imagine, and so all I can do here, right, the climate system is incredibly complex. All I'm doing here is sort of a first-order approach. Let's imagine sort of two worlds and compare them in these worlds of all over time. On the left-hand side, we've got sort of our cartoon world here. This is the world without emissions. We've got some energy coming in from the atmosphere, and on the right, B, world B, we have world with emissions, okay? And the difference between these two worlds is that the energy input from the environment to the biosystems and human systems that we care about is larger because of the increased thermal energy transfer and increased radiation from the atmosphere. Zhang and Caldera quantified this, Caldera's can here from the Carnegie Institute, quantified this with a coupled climate and ocean model where they were able to run these coupled models for thousands of years, and they said every mole of CO2 results in 4.5 times 10 to the 10th joules of total warming. Compare this to the heating value of pure carbon or the energy formation of pure carbon. It's about 114,000 times more than the energy content of the coal or oxidizing the carbon. This is quite a problematic result. So for a first estimate of the sort of time-integrated exergetic impact, this is not actually an empty slide. It may look like it. Down here on the left is the graph I just showed you three or four slides ago. You will see that I shrunk that down for a reason. If we add again extremely for a sort of quality-adjusting factor to this additional heat input to the biosphere in the human system, and here I assumed an average delta T of 1.5K over the life of this CO2 molecule. It's about 600 times, basically the difference in waste inputs or the waste inputs to the environment between these two worlds is about 600 times the exergy that we would consume in capturing CO2, okay? So from this perspective, this sort of time-integrated perspective, investing some natural resource exergy in capturing the CO2 looks like a fabulous deal, right? Because we're driving the climate system, we're driving the biosystems, we're driving the future sort of human societies thermodynamically much less than what we have to spend. You might say, does the thermodynamic quality of environmental impacts matter? Why did I adjust Caldera's factor of 100,000 for thermodynamic quality? Why didn't I just use 100,000? To illustrate this, and this is maybe where we'll get a little controversial, but I think this is a fun thought experiment, these are illustrations of two things that are happening around the planet right now as we speak. On the left, we have lightning. Negative charges almost always, although not entirely. Typically negative charges will build up on the bottom of thunder clouds, effectively store energy in an electrostatic field between the ground and the sky. When that potential crosses the tens to hundreds of millions of volts, you begin to rip apart air, air starts to ionize, and you basically form a channel of plasma or ionized air and then all of a sudden in a split second, this charge balance or this energy stored in an electrostatic field dissipates. Satellites find that you have about 45 to 55 or 50 flashes per second around the planet average from lightning, but 80% of those are cloud to cloud or intra-cloud flashes equalizing the static charge within clouds. About 20% of those hit the ground that we know about. Each flash dissipates on order one gigajoule, so if we say 10 per second times one gigajoule is 10 to the 10th watts, fun, right? So that's effectively the amount of electric potential that's being sort of dissipated or equilibrated at all times on the planet on average. World or sort of case B, and again, these are two things that are actually happening right now. Case B, we see that radiative forcing due to CO2 according to AR5 is about 1.68 watts per meter squared measured at the tropopause per unit meter squared of the earth's surface. The area of the earth is 5.1 times 10 to the fourth meter squared, so this power is of the order 10 to 15 watts. I'm not a social scientist, but I think if you went out and asked the public how many of you believe in the existence of lightning? Almost everyone would say yes. How many of you believe in the existence of climate change? You get a lot of no's, despite the fact that the effective energy flux due to climate change is 10 to the fifth times larger than the constant energy flux due to lightning around the entire planet. Okay, so you can imagine a bizarre alternate world where instead of affecting the radiative balance of the atmosphere, CO2 caused charge to build up on clouds. In order to dissipate that charge, the lightning on the planet would need to increase by a factor of 100,000 to dissipate this charge. Again, I'm not a social scientist. I think in that world we would not be having an argument about whether or not climate change is real, okay? So again, quality matters, lightning is about as spatially dense, temporally dense and exergetic, has a high exergetic quality factor, as you can possibly imagine, the opposite is the case with radiation from climate change. It's unclear how to measure CO2 impacts on biosystems and I'm out of time, but I will slide into home here. Chemical exergy is a poor indicator of biological impacts. Sodium cyanide has a chemical exergy of 13.7 megajoules per kilogram. Well, canola oil has a chemical exergy of 40.6 megajoules per kilogram. The lethal dose of sodium cyanide is 200 to 300 milligrams and will kill you very quickly. I don't know what the lethal dose of canola oil is.  Or myself, I am known to enjoy french fries. Well, various methods have been used to understand the thermodynamics of biology and basically value from a thermodynamic sense the incredible order and in a sense the incredible sort of thermodynamic improbability of life existing. They'll do this, for example, by analyzing the information content of DNA strands and coming up with a multiple to the sort of energy value of just the fats and carbohydrates and proteins that we're made of. I don't know that I believe this and I don't know that exergy is the right way to measure impacts on biosystems, but we know the answer isn't zero so we shouldn't ignore it, right? So any unified indicator should do something about this. So some conclusions, holistic environmental assessment of new energy technologies is possible. You can cover all processes of the economy and measure impacts on a consistent thermodynamic basis. So this is really cool, I'm very excited about this. Traditional exergy analysis that people have proposed for 30 years of CO2 makes the benefit of CCS look small. Extended impact analysis that looks at changes to this sort of driven climate system that we have makes CO2 look like a wonderful deal or CO2 capture look like a wonderful thing to do and the thermodynamic quality of environmental impact does matter. I think there are numerous applications of the system scale thermodynamic analysis for comparisons of other energy technologies. For example, we could look at solar panels and all sorts of things. So lots of fun stuff to do here. So thank you and I'll take any questions you may have. A quick clarifying question. So 10 to the 15th watts of lifetime radiation for all the carbon burned and released that's sitting up in the atmosphere over the five times 10 to the, I missed that last, 10 to the 14th meter squared. Is there a translation that you've done as to total lifetime radiative forcing per meter squared for an individual carbon molecule? That's essentially what Caldera and Zhang did and that's where they got this time integrated 100,000 times heat input. And so what they did basically is they ran a coupled, it's a very challenging problem to do actually, this is sort of why it hadn't been done before, but they ran a coupled oceans model and modeling the chemical equilibrium in the oceans and the uptake is in carbonate and bicarbonate, the eventual settling out of CO2 to form rocks and minerals and things like this coupled with a climate model ran over very long time periods, thousands of years until the model equilibrates and removes all the CO2 and they get the time integrated heat impact of 100,000 times the heating value of the coal. The point of the quality adjustment is that you can't just say 100,000 times the heating value of the coal because you burn coal and you create very high quality heat, right? And then whereas what's coming back to us is this very gentle, very gentle sort of, it's still energy and it's a hell of a lot of energy but it comes back to us at a very low quality gradient. I think to do this right, you require my sort of back of the envelope, you'd have to expand it. So there's been some nice observational evidence in the last six months of changes in the down, what's called the downwelling long wave radiation due to CO2 enhancements and so they're seen around the 12 to 13 micron, the edges of the main CO2 band, you're seeing more back radiation and this is the first really solid experimental evidence as published in Nature of the sort of the ground level forcing effect of CO2. So some of this is coming at us as heat, some of this is coming at us as 12 or 14 micron infrared radiation. I would need to work with an atmospheric physicist or atmosphere chemist to do this right but to first order I just modeled it as heat so we could talk about it. But taking this 100,000 at face value effectively assumes that those qualities are equal and they're not, they can't drive as much change. I'm a retired engineer for decades so you're speaking to a layman. Sure. I was having trouble following this in terms of some of the statements as I think I understood them. And the conclusion, I think you said something, you're talking about the difficulty of measuring the impacts on the earth of the climate change. I think you were talking about that thermodynamically and chemically, did I get that right? Sure, yeah. Okay, and then you concluded at the end that CCS was unlikely to have any important impact on climate change if I understood that.  And I didn't follow any connection there. Yeah, so sorry, let me back up. The conclusion of the first half of the talk using the methodologies that people have proposed for 30 years, this sort of standard exergy analysis is that there's not that much benefit to sequestering CO2 because CO2 does not have that much exergy content relative to the atmosphere. That is this very static, bring the exhaust to equilibrium, dilute it out in the atmosphere, how much driving potential is there? That's a very sort of static, traditional, sort of simplified mental model for computing exergy. In reality, we know that many of the assumptions buried in exergy analysis don't work for CO2. Like the idea that it doesn't build up or that your reference environment is always unchanging. We actually know that's the whole problem with CO2 is that the reference environment is not unchanging, right? And since 1750, we've added a lot of CO2 to the system. It's very stable over a long time period. Most greatest interest to me is how did you, what led you to the conclusion that CCS was unlikely to have any important data? Yeah, yeah, so that, sorry, that was, that's not my conclusion. That's the conclusion that how people have been saying you should do this. You run those numbers, CCS doesn't look beneficial. You run the numbers taking into account this heat input that happens over centuries and quality adjusting it. And you get, this is the red waste, which was the bad bar in our old graph. You now add this enormous, which dwarfs the size of the original graph, basically. And so you get a 600 times return every unit of exergy you invest in scrubbing CO2. You avoid 600 times that amount of thermodynamic pollution, so to speak. So CCS looks bad from the first perspective, like the best deal we could possibly imagine from the second perspective. It looks fabulous. Usually important to do CCS if you believe this broader perspective, which I do. Okay, I got it. Yeah, yeah. There was one other question, though. There was something like, you spend 50 times the amount of resources for one unit of benefit on waste. Is that real? That's using the more narrow boundary, not looking at CO2 impact over time. And so that's saying the amount of natural resources you have to expend, and almost all of this is extra coal because the inefficiency of the plant doesn't lower your waste outputs very much. And so you don't get much quote unquote sort of reduction in the environmental drive. And then what I'm saying in sort of the second half is that actually when you do the right size of that red wedge that we're concerned about, the red bar, it's actually huge. And that's actually the whole rub of moving to a broader sort of thermodynamic assessment. I've got it, thank you very much. Yeah, sorry about that. I was, yeah. And I think we've got maybe a minute, so maybe one more. I got the microphone over here. Oh, yep. So I'm thinking biochar. You talked about essentially modeling, and it seems like this would be a really good candidate for a geographic information system based model of all economic activity plus all the background stuff. And that number there, I mean you could reasonably show if everybody does some gardening work and buries some biochar, the way they were doing in the Amazon 500 years ago, we could take a geologic quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere, and then you're saying that's worth 600 times the amount of work that's done to do that. So that could be a really nice teaching tool as well as a nice economic modeling and planning tool for the planet. This would be the right way to do biochar because it interacts with all sorts of other agricultural systems and trucking and all these things you might have to do biochar at scale. So this is exactly what you'd wanna do to analyze biochar. And I think the benefits would be the same or larger. You wouldn't need the trucking because you'd be doing it on a local basis as you farm and grow trees. Sure, and you could model both cases, and yeah. But this would be the right way to do biochar. And people have started on that, but I think this part is better. I think we're, I think I'm done. All right, thanks, Sally, and thank you everyone. Feel free to find me afterwards for questions.


It is really hard to believe that I've been doing this whole YouTube thing since September 2020 I'm in the midst of my third year doing this and just like I did last year what I want to do today is Kind of do a state of the YouTube channel kind of thing where I discussed a little bit about the year that we just got through and then Talk a little bit about my goals and stuff like that for the upcoming year now. Obviously. This is not going to be of interest to Very many people in terms of like new subscribers, but if you've been following me for a while It's it. I think it's a good thing every year or so to kind of sit down and reflect over not only where we've been but where we're going so Before we jump into all the stuff that I want to talk about first I want to say just thank you so very much whether you are a longtime subscriber to the channel or You're brand-new here. Thank you so much for your subscription. I truly Appreciate it like I don't I say it at the end of every video It's become kind of a a rote thing where I say the same words over and over again But I truly do Appreciate everybody who subscribes to the channel like without you the channel just not be anywhere near where it is right now I don't know whether or not I would even continue to make so many videos I may be down to like a video a month or something like that. So Just if you've hit the subscription button if you hit the subscribe button, I should say thank you so very much Also just a brief thank you at the beginning of the video this time to all my patreons youtube members and so on you guys are all Amazing. Thank you for all your support over the last two and a half years Just thank you. So now that I've got the mushy stuff out of the way Let's talk a little bit about this past year. So at the beginning of 2022 Which is this past year, which is hard to think about that that was 2022 and we're in 2023 at the beginning of that year I had just passed 5,000 subscribers The fact that I'm now at 25,000 subscribers in january of the next year Is just it's bonkers to me like I cannot believe How fast this channel has grown over the course of the last year. It's been absolutely nuts and Like I said, thanks to everybody who subscribed but also just It's mind-blowing and I don't know what to do with that information half the time The fact that there are so many people who have subscribed to this channel meaning that they want to occasionally see some of my other content is just it's It's humbling but also completely shocking to me most of the time. So Just the fact that it has grown so much is just it's like I said, it's mind-blowing.  Beast, but the ones that have just done really really well And there have been some surprises. So the one that has done the best my mess my best video ever is the video that I did on the Display manager called I'm gonna butcher this name because I don't remember what it's called It's like lie. I think it's called I'm not I can't actually remember if that's the name. It's completely It's escaped my brain because I remembered it like five seconds ago, but now I don't remember But anyways, it was on a terminal display manager And that video is at like 160,000 views now and that was published in May of last year. So that video brought in a lot of new people like Almost 2,000 new people just subscribed from that one video alone Which is just it's absolutely nuts and they continue that video continues to do very well every single day so And I've had a couple of videos that have done really well like that Now obviously not to that end But I've had you know several that have gone into the 30 and 40,000 mark Which is always nice to see it's also still one of those things where I don't really understand the youtube algorithm I don't think anybody but mr. Beast actually does I don't know what made that display manager video pop like that if I did I'd make many many more I mean, uh, I won't be I won't lie to you and say that I won't just make those videos over and over again If I knew that those were so popular But I have no clue why that particular one popped off either got shared somewhere or something like that I don't know But the point is is that I've made many videos over the course of the last year that I'm Pretty proud of and we're fairly popular. So I'm happy about that I've also made some stinkers, but I don't you can't make as many videos as I do and not make You know the the I'm gonna say the occasional stinky video, but I make a lot of really bad videos And I know that I'm not the most popular linux youtuber out there I've seen the comments of some people on discord and other discord servers other than my own thankfully Saying that I'm too whiny that I'm too negative that I tend to They wonder why I even use linux because because I can plan about linux all the time They talk about why I have some severe problems with Actually being smart enough to do half of the things that I talk about which is true I've never claimed to be a smart person. I've never claimed to be Uh a linux and you know expert or anything like that. In fact in my YouTube description, I call myself an eternal linux noob. I am a noob And I will continue to be so so like I see the negative comments But I also see a lot of positive comments and stuff like that. So, uh, yeah, I make the occasion I make, you know bad videos all the time And I probably will continue to do so But there are some things over the course of the last year that I've Kind of learned from and then I'm still trying to improve So one of them is that and I've not really heard a lot of comments about this But I can feel it in my brain That I oftentimes repeat myself in terms of videos Now I don't think that I've done like two videos that are exactly the same Or at least I haven't published them because I there was one video fairly recently Where I went through and did the video got it all edited and then realized that I'd already done that exact same topic And I think that probably if you'd make do as many videos as I do that's just going to happen But thankfully I haven't done that often But I do know that I repeat myself a lot and that there are certain beliefs that I've Put out there and videos that I do tend to Repeat a lot on this channel and it can get very repetitive. So I know And I've thought about this a lot over the The last couple months that I've you know, I need to start to freshen up the Topics on the channel if I'm going to continue to do this I need to start making content that isn't always the same content over and over again. So Not only will it make it so that it's not repetitive for you But also it's not going to be repetitive for me because I'll be honest with you I don't really want to make the same content over and over again. So It's kind of a win-win situation. I can try some new things and try some Doing things different ways, you know try to do things different ways And it will make it fresher for me as well. So that's one of my goals for the upcoming year is to kind of do some fresh different things now when I talk about fresh different things, I'm not going to Completely overhaul the channel or anything like that. I'm still going to be me. I'm not going to start scripting or anything like that I've proven to myself that I can't script worth a damn But I am going to start to Outline a little bit more So for example the video that I've been working on for the last couple weeks that has been taking so much of my time is a video on silver blue and I have that outlined and I'm hoping that by Instead of winging it like I usually do like I'm doing now I'm hoping that by providing myself a little bit of an outline not only can I Provide a video that's more structured so I can you know do time stamps and stuff like that, but also That I repeat myself less because I do repeat myself inside of videos often a lot too, which I probably will in this video I probably already have a couple times. So that's just kind of the the way I talk I ramble a lot like one of the categories or the playlist that I have on my channel is rambles And basically that could be every video that I make I ramble quite a bit. So That's one of my goals for this year is to try to Create some fresher content. So for example, I've been starting to do this thing in this book. This is a It's supposed to be bullet journal. I'm not uh, my handwriting is horrible So I can never do the bullet journal thing, but I'm trying anyways, but it's not really for any like personal Goals or anything like it's instead for the channel and you know, I've created like a calendar and stuff like that One of the things that I've tried to do over the last You know a few weeks or whatever is to create a video schedule where I can Actually write down my ideas for the entire month and kind of see everything that I want to do That way I don't repeat anything But also so that I can kind of know when I want, you know, when I'm supposed to do something now Like I said, I've been doing this. I did in December. I did it in January and I did a really good job in December in terms of doing all the videos that I plan to do except for like a couple I think I missed like three And I pushed those to January so far. I have not done a very good job of doing them on the days that I've scheduled So you probably can't see this all that well but I have like all the days listed out And I should do the video that you know like today if what's the date today today's the night So today should be rss for the win, right? That's the video that I should be doing But I've skipped a whole bunch and kind of skipped around That's the problem that I'm finding so far is that instead of following the schedule I'm skipping around so it doesn't really matter to anybody but It's something that I'm going to work on is to actually do the videos that I've scheduled myself to do but By writing them down at least in order or you know Like in a month or whatever so that I can see the things that I want to do during that month I'm hoping that I don't create so many repetitive topics But also that I can kind of keep myself on track a little bit in terms of making the videos that I want To make instead of coming up with a random topic like I did today and you know just Winging it for a ramble now It doesn't mean those videos are going to go away because obviously I'm still going to have like when I do stuff on linux oftentimes encounter things that piss me off So I do rant videos every once in a while those videos have slowed down a little bit because I used to do rant videos Like every day So I don't do that as often But those aren't going to go away, you know if if I have something to rant about I'm going to just I'm going to rant about it Usually it's probably going to be pipe wire or Wayland like today. I could have actually ran it about Wayland But I've done that before and I have nothing new to new to add to it Like I spent all day yesterday messing around with Wayland specifically hyperland And while hyperland is pretty good Wayland still has its issues But I don't really need to cover that because I've already done it before and like I said, I'm trying that to be so repetitive. So That's one goal that I have for this upcoming year Is to make fresher content another one Is to do some more in-depth things some more tutorials things like that I'm starting to take a python course. So maybe I should I'm going to do some scripting later on in the year that'd be kind of fun I've started to Go over my bash knowledge so that I know a little bit more about bash So maybe I'll do some more bash scripting stuff like that I'm going to be doing some more window manager content. So I have very wm scheduled on the On the schedule for this month if I can get obs to work I'm going to do a video on hyperland sometime hopefully this week. I can't go obs to work That's the problem that I was having with Wayland. Um, I still don't know what's going on with that But I'll figure that out. So I'm going to be doing more window manager content I'm 100 positive that I'll still do rising content from time to time I really enjoy those time lapse videos. I know that they're not very popular with y'all With y'all, but um I like doing them, especially on days like today like today I thought about doing one because it was just a horrible day at work. It's been a very long day And uh, I didn't feel like finishing the silver blue video. So I was going to do a rising video But instead I decided to do this which was on the schedule anyways for tomorrow. I just decided to do it Day early Yeah, so as you can tell uh from that brief cut there I got interrupted and ended up, you know, losing my train of thought So I have no clue what I was talking about there at the end, but the oh um Goal so like you said more window managers stuff like that tutorial scripting and stuff like that is stuff that I'm I wonder how many more times I can say stuff in that sentence. Good lord, man But anyways, the the point is is that I'm going to be trying some more in-depth content instead of the fairly fluffy no substance stuff that Often filled my channel in the past, right? I Can't admit that some of the topics that I've covered are just kind of filler content, right? You know, I felt like I had to make a video So I made a video and well, I wouldn't say that those videos are bad Like there there is a place for that kind of stuff. There are some weeks there where you know Some of that was it was all I did, right? So I'm gonna do some more in-depth stuff You'll see a lot more distro stuff on my channel, but I'm struggling with how to do that So like I'm gonna do this I have this silver blue one that I'm working on And I'm doing I'm in the middle of my long-term review for void and my next one's going to be nyx os And I'm going to take a first look at vanilla os and I have uh, what else do I have scheduled in terms of Operating systems for this month. I have a fedora versus open sues of video that I've been working on for a while I have the outline for that ready to go, but I need to do the rest of the stuff that goes with it So that's probably going to be towards the end of the month despite the fact that it's scheduled for the second of january That was good. Um, I have some other ones out here for distros But the the point is is that the distra videos that I want to do Take a little bit time, right? And I want to say distra reviews The the distra stuff that I want to do takes a little bit time because it's not going to be all reviews and that's kind of the where I I've talked about distra reviews in my Disinterest in just doing a quick shot distra review despite the fact that they're always very popular and I'm not going I'm not I'm done with those I don't need to get into that whole argument again that kind of spread throughout out youtube, which was highly entertaining I mean it was very entertaining to watch every Linux youtuber talk about that topic some of them did fantastic videos in response to to that I highly recommend you go search those out But it was entertaining to me that I started that that was that was great But I I'm done with distra reviews that are like that right and I talked about that in that video I don't want to do those anymore So the distra stuff that you'll see on my channel from now on are going to be different things So I'm going to be doing the one on silver blue is what is silver blue? I'm going to go in-depth on what silver blue actually is it's not a review It's more of a Defant a definition of silver blue and going over some of the reasons why you want to use it why it's good Why it's bad things like that I'm also going to be doing some history So like I don't know if you guys know this but I work for history magazine and I'm an editor there now used to do a writing for it and By trade I suppose I'm an I'm a historian right really just a writer But I majored in history at university And what I thought I would do and something that I think would be fun is some history of Kind of videos so one of the ones that I'm going to be doing is history of fedora this month I think that that would be highly entertaining. I don't know whether or not those videos will do well We'll see But I think this is something that can be you know kind of fun. So I also have some What I'm calling investigative reporting Which is probably not the correct term because I'm not I'm not a reporter, but Yeah, I'm going to do some In-depth videos on some of the things that have happened Over the course of my time using linux So one of the things I'm going to be looking at is elementary. Oh, that's what the hell happened elementary. Oh, that's right Uh, I want to look take a look and see kind of Why that project has kind of become tarnished or It's languishing if I guess is the word you could could use but you know, I just want to stuff like that, right? Um, that's something that I had planned for this Upcoming month or maybe next month depending on how how I get to it. So Yeah, the the point is is that the content on the channel is not going to change all that much I'm still going to be the rambly no-nonsense kind of Weirdo that you guys watch on this channel But I'm going to do some more in-depth stuff on the channel Hopefully as we go through this year and I hope that that's something that you guys will enjoy I know that it's going to be a little bit more of a challenge. Which is why You'll probably see me take more some more days off now my original plan for the year Back when new year's resolutions were All still kept which was before January 1st And my original plan was to do a video every single day and I have You know, I have videos Planned out for every single day of the year and I'm still going to do Videos mostly every day, but in the week since I've started this whole thing I've Decided that I just don't want to do a video every single day in terms of actually releasing one Instead I'm going to focus on getting ahead So that I can still take some days off and days that I need to just not do a video and Instead of forcing a video out I think it'd be better for me to just like like yesterday was my first day off of the year in terms of video making and I just use I could have made a video last night. I had time but I had The ideas that I had were all fluff pieces and all of them felt like things that I've done before And I just I'm sure I will make videos that are repetitive in the future You know, there are certain topics that deserve to be reiterated in different ways and Applied to different scenarios and things like that, but I don't want to be all about that. So Yeah, I'm just I'm not going I'm at the point now Where I just I want to be more Cautious when I make a video and make sure that the videos that I You know release are, you know, good videos, you know As good videos as I can make anyway. So I think that's where I'm going to stop for this year in terms of They say to not to make external goals for your youtube subscribers. So I've pretty much stopped doing that But you know, I'm just so grateful for where I am right now. If I'm at if at the end of 2023 I'm still at 25,000 subscribers I will be just as happy As I am right now or I'm going to try to be anyways. So, you know, I try not to be The kind of guy who who chases subscribers like you I do the whole subscriber animation at the beginning of the videos But I never say hey subscriber the video like right at the beginning, right?  I mean everybody if you do this thing You want people to watch your video and the more people who watch the more you want, right? I'm at 25,000 right now and I man. I really want to see 50. I want to see 100 And I can only imagine how much that feeling is amplified when it's not 25 or 50 that you're talking about It's millions right. I can understand that but I don't I don't have any interest in ever being a million subscriber channel I don't know what I would do that with that many subscribers. I'm sure it'd be fantastic, but Part of the whole thing is I want to enjoy the journey I'll be happy going if if I ever get to 100,000 or 200,000 like dt or whatever I want to enjoy the journey to get there and there's no sense in me Wining about the fact that You know, you didn't subscribe to my video because you don't like it or you didn't like me or whatever If you like my videos subscribe if you don't don't subscribe I'm a youtube content creator, but I'm also a youtube Content, you know viewer I'm subscribed to every channel that I view.  Good lord. It's time to end the video That one's it for this one. Thank you guys for a wonderful 2022 I really truly appreciate everything that happened in 2022 in terms of the channel. It's just The growth continues to blow my mind and I'm appreciative of it of it And I don't need to say that anymore. Are you guys I think you guys got the message So, uh, here's to a wonderful 2023. I hope everyone I know it's like a week late, but I hope everyone has a fantastic year ahead and that you all win the lottery and marry beautiful people If you're not already married if you're already married, you probably shouldn't marry someone else. That's usually not, you know legal so, um You can tell it's been a really long day. I'm still rambling anyways. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time Thanks to all my patrons. You guys are all amazing I'll put the the the the role here at the end so you guys can see your names. But anyways, I'll uh, I'll see you tomorrow


man's been some times since I've done one of these yeah today we're gonna be doing some kpop games actually we're gonna be doing one kpop game but I plan on doing more kpop games on the channel because seriously I do like kpop games once every two months or three months maybe even more so today we're gonna be guessing the kpop song by its rap and I reckon I'm gonna be pretty good at this because one I listen to a lot of kpop and two I'm pretty confident with the raps and free this is gonna be easy peasy because it's easy peasy and then it's squeezy we're definitely gonna get more than 50% and I'm probably not gonna keep a count on my score because I always forget at the end of the video but yeah I wonder how this is gonna go because it has been quite some time since I have played a game but I reckon it will be easy because it is rap I'd listen to kpop a lot and it should be easy no it should be easy so yeah I think they just get straight into this I'm freaking excited I hope you guys are doing it let's do this hey hey we are we are we are we are we are we are we are amongst the X beautiful once it's beautiful if it's I know right just give it a couple seconds three two one oh I'm winning I don't know oh that earlier today what is the song seriously what is the song I've never listened to a miss a song so there we go that's our why the AV spotlight no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no I think I love the AV or VEV because it's a fun way oh that was wrong easy we go up dude NCT dream this is a mark wrapping if you couldn't tell it's obvious oh so obvious when it's a mark wrap we go this just sounds like a dreamcatcher song I'm just gonna say sleepwalk or whatever it is it just sounds like a dreamcatcher song chase me no what is it good night but I got it I got dreamcatcher it just I'm like didn't introduce so I feel definitely into it I said oh this song another song another song another song another song yeah baby goodbye baby it's so lotto easy gosh heavy Sarah G I can't say much because I've been fading quite a lot you can never get back Nibs, not me that, not me that. Preston V, get it. Oh, oh no, no, Preston, oh, we like. I'm thinking of Preston V. All right, don't worry guys, I got it right. I know this song. I know, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.  See, I knew the melody of the part that it would play. W, J, S, N, Cosmic Girls, what is the song? Secret, I don't know, it's not secret, definitely not secret. I didn't get it, I would never say that guys, you're just crazy.  It's the one, it's the one, it's the one, it's the one where they die.  I knew it was, I knew it was that song, but I forgot the title. I know this song as well. I know this song as well, trust me. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Dude, In fact man, amazing. I didn't react to this. I felt bad, but I love this song so much. Nah, nah, I have not seen this one. Oh, I know this song. I love this song, I play this. I know it, well I didn't know it, but I got the song, I play this. I'm gonna try one more. Oh, I forgot her name. Da, sa, sa, da, sa, da. Yeezy, sa, da, sa, sa, da. Dude, that's a great song, not gonna lie, listen to it quite often when it comes out. That's what I'm doing right now. Mad town, oh my God, thanks. I forgot the note, oh my God, thanks.  I do know this. I have a blank fort right now, I don't know what it is. I do know this song, oh, baby. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, baby, this is another song I know, this is another song I know, what? B2B, only one. It's not B2B, not only one. Can't not really, that does, ah.  Okay, I know these songs, just. I actually thought he didn't know. Digit, I seriously, I seriously, I am, I'm annoyed at myself. I knew so many of those songs, so many of those songs, and then boom, boom, boom, boom, but just nah, nah, I can't answer it because I'm dumb. Ah, seriously guys, that annoys me so much. Like how many of them did I fully know? A lot of them, okay, a lot of them. Now does that annoy you? Yes, does it annoy me? Yes, oh my God guys, what should we do? I know, subscribe to my channel, that'll make me happy. Over else I will drop this tennis ball, okay guys. Subscribe or this tennis ball will be dropped.  I'm just gonna keep holding it for the rest of this video. But yeah guys, that's basically gonna be all for this video, if you guys did enjoy it. If you guys did, then definitely show some support by leaving a like and also comment down below what other K-pop games you want me to do and also subscribe if you guys are new to the channel because there'll be more K-pop games coming to you because I need to do them more often. And yeah, other than that, I hope you guys have a great day and just keep on smiling and ah, D, yo!


Mae'r ystyried i'n meddwl am ymddangos ni wedi'i'n gwneud hynny, ond thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this via video. I want to talk about some thoughts that developed out of my work in early prehistory, looking at artifact scatters, and thinking about how, in early human evolution, people interacted with the residues of their own behaviour in landscapes, as well as those of other people. I hope this is a relevance beyond very early human evolution where we're just dealing with answer backs and certainly it's led me to start thinking about the way more purposeful placement of stones in the landscape may have played a role in our social interaction with each other, our social use of landscapes and especially thinking about how stones and landscapes working together with our capacity to invoke others, to invoke stories and to encode landscapes with information, leave potentially very complex and rich traces of past human behaviour in our prehistoric matters. Inspiration for this work really comes from the 1960s and 70s work Glen Isaac, working on early Pleistocene artefact scatters at sites such as Olygu Sailing and in West Ocarnau, where Glen Isaac was trying to get to grips with what do the fundamental particles of our research stone tools mean when we find them either in isolation or in different configurations. He tried to get to grips with the texture of archaeological signatures contrasting the dense patches which may represent particularly long-lived activity areas with the background scatters of isolated art. Dealing with the texture of the archaeological record in what he described as the scatters and patches terrain of artefact distribution in extensive paleo-land services, it came obsessed with wondering what is the fundamental particle that we need to deal with to understand past human behaviour. Is it the individual artefact representing the gesture of removal from a core potentially used as a tool to discard or should we be scaling up to seeing how different artefacts work together in other units such as a particular reduction sequence of a tool or a group artefact that is relating to human behaviour? The important thing is that these things are scalable and they are scalable in time. I think that the artefact itself, the individual tool, is the fundamental particle. It's only by looking at the dynamics and life history of individual artefacts. As part of a wider sense of the mapping scatter, the landscape, can we really build up a full range of dynamics in terms of human behaviour and in terms of the tachymagic processes that might be obscuring a correct interpretation. Were you well equipped as archaeologists to try and imagine how these artefacts play roles in the social and ecological behaviour of homining groups in deep tidal? Our entire discipline is built on identifying artefacts within landscapes and through correct interpretation and reading of that record, bringing into focus agency on an individual level and group dynamics over short term and long term time scouts. That's the fundamental part of what we do. That's a fundamentally archaeological process, that reading and that interpretation. We routinely work from identifying artefacts within a landscape, understanding their context, creating a very detailed record of their relationship to each other, their relationship to a depositional framework. From that, we reconstruct larger units of behaviour, whether through refitting a mapping scatter or whether through looking at an extended chain or through a twad, the way that the lithics are giving indications of other aspects of behaviour, use of organic materials, interaction with the environment and wider social groupings and social complexity. In this step-wise way, we invoke past human behaviour, we invoke past human agents and agency and this is effectively the ultimate goal and the ultimate product of our team. Our reconstructions of past human behaviour as well are directly triggered by our engagement with these objects. We are not immune from these same processes which would have acted upon our very early ancestors. We go from moving in landscapes, identifying and recognising objects as potentially being the result of human agency, where there's consensus in that we can sometimes harness huge resources and we can harness our own networks, whether those networks are social or academic or economic, to bring to bear a huge amount of human activity. Consider the trigger of finding an artifact in a particular context and thinking of its significance, either an artifact in an area where we didn't know humans were present or at a time where we didn't know humans were making artifacts and what that sets in trying a huge amount of social and economic complexity takes place through engagement with that artifact. This leads to an enormous amount of modification of the landscape, of the artifacts, of reconfiguration of our social and academic networks and a huge amount of focus. This is a fundamental part of our discipline and I think in some ways it informs just how posing these objects within landscapes could have been in the past to triggering and reconfiguring reconstructions of the past and no more than shadowy ghosts that have been invoked from a very basic record looked at in a very sophisticated way. But this invocation of others from static, isolated and sometimes long discarded material is something we instinctually do. Being instinctually doing outside of archaeology we do, moving into a room, looking at the objects around, decoding behaviours that may have happened there before. It's a way that we fundamentally as humans with a very well-developed sense of social complexity and understanding the relationship between material objects and potential social scenarios constantly being environments. Where we're dealing with very complicated sites where sometimes we have tens of thousands of fundamental particles, we need to rely on a huge multidisciplinary approach to filter out all the background noise of tachynoic processes, geological processes, overprinting of behavioural signatures to bring those individual processes into focus. But we can do this instantly and instinctually working through complex urban environments in our day-to-day life where you're constantly decoding these objects and their significance through their juxtaposition through any indication of timeline and time depth. We're now capable in lithic analysis and in decoding the nuts and bolts of our record, which is stone tools, of actually pulling out time depth. I like to think of the red shift of the lithic scatter. The scatter and patches maps that we're able to create from our surveys within landscapes are not two-dimensional maps past human behaviour, nor are they three-dimensional maps of landscape use within a single time block. They are fully four-dimensional products of humans moving in space, interacting with each other and interacting with their own material traces. Therefore, these traces are only constant shift prior to sealing in the sedimentary system and we have to be aware of just how complex those transmit. We need to see them in an artefact scatter or a ritual landscape that contains filled monuments, stone alignments, stone circles. These landscapes are built up over time. They are projects that are never complete and always in flux and always have the potential to change and any change, any multiplication is happening in direct response to the triggers that are already there within the land. Glyn Isaac's scatters and patches, although they are genuinely a good way of describing spatial variation, are also a great way of describing temporal variation. Simply put, first movements into a landscape may end up leaving a background trace, but over time certain parts of the landscape may become a focus for activity and end up with denser patch concentrations. These themselves may act as a pawn and a focus, but even increased intensity of working leading to mega sites where tens of thousands of artefacts are found. We need to get to grips with mysterious structures like the D. K. Stem Circle. Is it a structure as was originally thought, maybe an early hotline structure? Or is it just an accumulation of material around a tree where people found the shady affordance and kept on coming back to again and again? I think in some ways the overall interpretation, while important, is a secondary consideration to the fact that a particular behaviour, a particular trigger in that behaviour leads to a compelling, concentrated and apparently self-organised distribution of stone archbacks at one place in the landscape. And I think this is the fundamental phenomena that we should be looking at. The tendency where a landscape is long lived and particles are moving as part of human social and ecological patterns for, even at an early stage, over two million years ago, for very organised patterns to begin to emerge. We also need to think about these patterns of intense concentration as providing affordances. If you have a landscape which is pulling people back again and again over a long period of time, acting as a draw and allowing dense concentrations to assist, and those dense concentrations of material themselves have a utility. They're a source of raw material. They're a source of tools that can essentially be recycled. They act as a marker in the landscape, showing human occupation patterns. They potentially encode very basic information about the resources and behaviours that took place there before. But if you've got a hominine capable of decoding that information, it's an information resource in itself. In this sense, as these concentrations increase, what we may be seeing is a form of niche construction. Actually enabling and enhancing the human use of space as these effectively cultural landscapes start to develop a texture and a vote. I've talked about these things a couple of times before with relevance to the Ashilean. Thinking about how highly structured discard environments may have acted as an advantage in early stages of human evolution is a couple of quotes. Where environmental conditions remain stable by face rich signatures would have marked off to more locales for resource exploitation, allowing basic information to be transmitted. Later on, just as these areas signal specific patterns of group behaviour to the archaeologists, even basic associative reinforcement would have marked such sites as socially significant hominin groups. I do not believe early hominins developing social complexity, developing an evolutionary path that was tightly enmeshed and entangled with this technology would have disregarded and ignored that technology as a source of information. We can see in the archaeological record that we test this by looking for direct interaction of paper and rum, and myself and Madalera has got coming out soon. Looks very specifically at patterns of reuse and resharpening in large artifact accumulations where artifacts have a chance to weather in the landscape before being picked up and reused. This is a passive utility, probably, but it's a utility nonetheless, giving an adaptive advantage to any hominin that's concentrating just the tools they need within a landscape where perhaps those raw materials are not very easily available. So, I like to muse that once we started leaving the step tools in large numbers in the landscape, we'd crossed a kind of threshold. I'm calling it today the Hansel and Gretel threshold. The climates have a large range of organic tools that they draw up. These are things that are going to be very fragile and very easily subjected to diogenesis and rotting and dispersal. We know that when Hansel and Gretel were trying to make sense of their environment, when they were using organic markers, like the trails of bread that got eaten by the birds, they were in a very perilous situation. When we started using stone tools, we were starting to use more durable markers. Now we've got an archaeological record because of stone technology going back 3.3 million years ago. It's anyone's guess when early primates started using stone tools for activities like cracking nuts. But as soon as you've got this more durable, more resilient marker in the landscape, just like Hansel and Gretel's trails of pebbles, you suddenly have something you can tend to be working with. And I think once we started leaving these durable traces, at least the possibility for interaction with them and co-evolution with these traces was possible. Leaving potentially quite visible and durable markers of our movement, our recombination, our exploitation. If this is right, we follow through the logic here that humans are leaving durable traces and they're interacting with them and they're triggering changes in behaviour. What we effectively have is a process of stigmergy occurring. Stigmergy is a process of indirect communication and learning by the environment which we find in social insects. Ants provide a really good case study. They leave pheromone traces which other ant individuals interact with, pick up very simple information from and then redirect their own behaviour. We don't leave scent traces. We don't go marking up against trees or leaving powerful pheromones thing. I've just found a food resource. How do we decode? Well, I think the simplest way we decode is by using our visual capabilities and by semiosis. By looking at visible signs in the landscape, whether that be simple trail markers like footprints or broken twigs or a blood trail, or more complex intentional markers, fully semiotic, culturally aware markers in the landscape. Semiosis is something we do incredibly. It underpins very complex social structures, very complex patterns of foraging and recombination and resource sharing. In humans, our very complex urban environments, the way we move around them, the way we organise traffic, public transport, pedestrian movement, finding resources, finding our way to and from our places of living, are entirely encoded through very overt signs and signals. Semiosis is the way that we make sense and perform the miracle of self-organisation. If we look back into the archaeological record, we may be seeing some of the individual steps towards this incredible capacity through our interaction with durable markers of our past behaviour left in the landscape. Marks that we still hone in on very quickly and very easily and find significant today. Seen in this point in time, these densely structured accumulations of material are an amplification of and underlyingly valuable. But I want us to think that we're kind of just like zombies blindly just responding to triggers in landscapes. The way we undertake semiosis is actually embedded in one of our other great adaptations, and it's not something that we're carrying out mindlessly. Our large brains, as we envisage from the social brain hypothesis developed within human evolutionary studies by Robin Dunbar, Clyde Gamble and John Gallagher sees the development of social cognition as underpinning the development of so much in the human brain and so much of our capacity to organise as very complex social groups within landscapes. And it's this social cognition that I think stands a good for being extended to decoding our material landscapes. And if there is something significant about objects in landscapes once they start being placed intentionally, it's not necessarily just there at the intention behind the original placement of a stone or the original erection of a monument, but it's about the potential it has for reinvention and transformation. Raise a stone in a landscape, drop a significant object and it has a gravity, a gravity that attracts human attention, attracts stories, attracts information. It rapidly has the potential therefore to increase encoding of those relationships. And I think seeing the stories and myths and social information as a dark matter that we can never fully know, but we can almost detect by its presence and potential to exist within landscapes, provides a model for thinking about our landscapes as being fields of differential gravity. In this sense, I think we should pay attention to myths and folklore that are attached to places and to objects and to prehistoric structures within the landscape, because I believe they are directly analogous, if however corrupt and fragmented, to the kinds of information that could be encoded in and see it as a spontaneous arising of a very natural interaction from a heavily developed extended social cognition that's part of our evolutionary legacy and the traces we leave on the landscape through both incidental and purposeful construction. I'll stop there and thank you.


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to a new Zor education. I would like to start a new section of this course. The section which is called double integrals. Well, I think this would be my last section in this advanced course of mathematics for teenagers. Usually the concept of double integrals is not covered in schools, but I think it's relatively simple concept. It's just one step further from regular definite integrals. So I decided that it probably makes sense, and it would be kind of a logical conclusion of this whole integral and calculus in general theme for the high school students. Alright, so if you remember when we were talking about definite integrals, we basically introduced the concept of area under the curve. So if our function is defined on a segment AB, then this area under the curve is basically an integral from A to B. Now, the way how I define this is basically as a sum of rectangles built under the function, under the function's graph, and the sum of these rectangles, sum of the areas of these rectangles. That actually approximates the area under the curve. Now, obviously we should have proven a theorem that regardless of how we divide our segment AB into smaller pieces, smaller and smaller, in the limit when the biggest of these pieces is shrinking down to zero, then the sum will have one concrete limit which is called an integral. So integral is basically a limit of so-called integral sums. Now, I would like to expand this picture to a three-dimensional case. Now, this is in a two-dimensional case, we have function of one argument and area under its graph. Now, in three-dimensional case, we have function of two arguments, function of X and Y, and it's defined for X between A and B and for Y between C and D, so within this rectangle. And this is basically the graph of my function, obviously not very artistically pleasant, but anyway, I'm sure you understand. So, this is the function and I would like to know the volume in this case. We are talking about three-dimensional case, right? So, we are talking about the volume under this surface. Now, not the curve, now we are talking about surface in three-dimension, right? So, on the top, it's limited by this surface which represents the three-dimensional graph of my function. F of X, Y. Now, on the bottom, it's X, Y plane. And on the left and the right, we have planes again bounding our area. This is plane X is equal to A, this is plane X is equal to B, this is plane equal to C and D. So, that's how my space is actually defined. So, I would like to know the volume of this figure. Now, obviously in the future it might be expanded to not a rectangular area where it's defined, but some other more complex thing, but let's just talk about this right now. That's the simplest case and that's how I'm going to introduce the double integral. All right, so, I will do exactly the same as I did for two-dimensional case and the function of one argument. I will divide my rectangle where my function of two arguments X and Y is defined into smaller rectangles like this. And on the top of each small rectangle as a base, I will build a rectangular parallelepiped, which means it's a flat on the top, it's flat on the bottom and it's flat on the top, but it touches the surface. So, it grows as much as to touch the surface. So, what will I get? Well, obviously the volume of each particular parallelepiped, I know, I mean that's the multiplication of three dimensions. And then I will add them up together and then there are obviously the same kind of a theorem similar to the two-dimensional case that whenever I'm shrinking the size of these small rectangles, so the biggest of them goes down to zero, I will have a certain limit and that limit would be the volume of this particular figure, object, whatever. So, now let's just try to do this. So, we will divide the segment from A to B into n different intervals, let me use the capital N, rather n. And from C to Yn would be my division of along the Y coordinates. So, these are x's and these are y's. And on their crossing I will have this subdivision of my area where the function is defined into small rectangles. So, let's talk about one particular rectangle. Now, I will use double indices, so rectangle, I know how to call it r, i, y, i, j. Now, this rectangle is on the x side, it would be from xi minus one to xi. And for on the y side, on the y it would be from y, j minus one to y, j. So, this is a rectangle, it's somewhere here where its right boundary is xi and bottom boundary is y, j. So, the area of this rectangle obviously is equal to xi minus xi minus one times i, j minus y, j minus one. So, that's the area of this rectangular parallel pipette which I'm going to build. Now, what is its height? Well, I was saying that I will grow this up until the point where it touches the surface. I think it would be a little bit better and it would be exactly the same result. If I will just take one of the corners of these small rectangles, the one which has the coordinates xi and y, j. And whatever the value of the function is in this particular corner, I will set as the height of this rectangle. So, my volume i, j would be equal to function of xi, y, j times xi minus x, i minus one minus one, y, j minus y, j minus one. So, that's my volume of one particular rectangular parallel pipette. Now, what do I have to do to approximate the whole volume? Well, I have to summarize this by i and by j. So, i is changing from one to m and j is changing from one to n. Now, let me just write it slightly differently. So, this is my volume. I will call it mn. So, it's not the real volume. It's a volume based on approximation of division by m on x and by n along the y-axis. Now, then if I will increase the m and n to infinity and simultaneously make these smaller and smaller, the theorem is, which I'm not going to prove, but again, I spent a lot of time in a two-dimensional case. It's basically going along the same line. So, the theorem is that no matter how you divide your rectangle into smaller rectangles by these points of division, as long as the maximum among xi minus x minus i one goes to zero and the maximum among these goes to zero, which incidentally means that m and n both should go to infinity. So, as long as this is done, under certain assumption about the function f, it should be smooth in some way. So, continual, differentiable, etc. I mean, there are certain functions which are only considered for these particular purposes. And in theory, for instance, the continuity is sufficient. But there are some weaker actual requirement, but we are not talking about this. Most of the functions you will be dealing with are relatively smooth. So, for all these smooth functions, the limit of that thing as this goes to zero and this goes to zero and m and n goes to infinity exists. And this limit will be the volume of this particular figure we are talking about. Now, let me just change slightly the notation here. I will use the following. It's sigma, sigma. Let's say first we sum by i and then we sum by j.  I will use this notation. Why? Because it's a little bit more familiar. Because if you will consider yj as a constant, which is not really changing yet. And just consider this piece. What does it remind you? As delta xi goes to zero and m goes to infinity, this part must have the limit. Now, what is this limit? Let's just think about it. This limit is the following. So, you fixed yj, which is somewhere here, which means there is a yj and yj minus one. So, you fix this particular slice, if you wish, of this figure. And then you are making these x smaller and smaller and smaller. So, that's what it actually means. So, eventually you will get the volume of this slice only. If ij and ij minus one are fixed, then you have a slice of this figure. And to basically make a volume of this slice, you basically do whatever I just said. Now, from regular integrals, from definite integrals, you remember that this thing, when m goes to infinity and all delta x's are going to zero, that's the definition of the integral. From the beginning, which is a to the end of function f of x comma yj dx. That's what it is, right? So, if I will replace this with this, it will be a function of yj, right? So, I have now function sigma from j one to n dy, delta, first delta. Now, if this is considered to be a function of yj, so what is this? As n goes to infinity and delta y goes to zero, that is basically, again, an integral. In this case, it's by y, from c to g, g of y dy. Or, in our expanded notation, it would be integral from c to g is external integral, from a to b is internal, f of xy dx dy. And that's the definition of the integral, of double integral in this case, right? So, I didn't really do much above and beyond from the understanding standpoint, to whatever we were talking about when we introduced the definite integral for the function of one variable. So, this is kind of an equivalent for the function of two arguments, f and xy. Now, here is a very interesting consideration. What I am saying is, I really don't want to have these brackets. And here is why. Think about the logic how I came up with this one. I had a double sum, when first I fixed my y coordinate, and then I sum by x. At the same time, I could come up with the same volume by fixing x, coordinate from here to here, from xi minus 1 to xi, and make a slice of this figure, and calculate the volume of this slice. And then by actually making y smaller and smaller and smaller. And that actually means that I have reversed the summation. The summation in this case would be from i from 1 to m, then for j from 1 to n, f of xi j delta y j delta xi. So, I just change these two deltas, which doesn't really change anything at all. It's still double sum. Double sum can be calculated like columns and then rows, or rows and then columns. It's still the same sum of all the elements in this whole table, two-dimensional table of x's and y's. And now this looks like sigma from 1 to m integral f of xi comma y, that's yj, right? dy, that's delta. And now, again, this is some kind of a function of xi. And the whole thing actually, as a limit, when delta xi goes to infinity, it goes to dx and integral from a to b. By the way, this integral from c to d, by y. Which is exactly the same. So, that's why I can really get rid of these, because they are exactly the same. I change the order of integration. I don't need i anymore. I change the order of integration and I've got exactly the same result, which is the volume under this particular surface. So, my point right now is that I have introduced a new concept, which is called double integral. It's really analogous to definite integral for functions of one argument. But in this case, that's the function of two arguments. And obviously, the graph of this function is surface now. There is one complication if you will compare it with a one-dimensional case, with the function of one argument. You see, function of one argument can be defined only on a simple segment from a to b. Function of two arguments obviously can be defined on a rectangular domain, x from a to b and y from c to g. However, you can actually consider some other function, which is defined on a much more complex area here, which is not really, maybe it's a circle. Function is defined on a circle. Is it possible? Consider a sphere, for instance, a sphere which has a center at the origin of co-ordinate. It's actually defined on all those x's and y's, which are within circle, right? Because that's how sphere actually is defined. Outside of the circle, there are no values of my function. Well, let's talk about half a sphere, right? Because the whole sphere has top and bottom, but half a sphere is really some kind of a surface which can be represented as a formula. So, that would be a complication which I will address in the next lecture. But it might be really a slight complication. However, in case of rectangular area, which is actually domain of our function f of x, f of x, y, situation is really like this one, which means you can really exchange, because these are constants from A to B and from C to D. They define this rectangle where it's defined, where the function is defined. So, in this case, it's really kind of symmetrical. You can change the order of integration in case of, you know, more complicated domain you cannot. But we will talk about this separately. Okay, so far, this is basically the introduction, this is the overview of what is a double integral in the simplest case when domain is represented by a rectangle from A to B on x and from C to D on y. That's it for today. Thank you very much and good luck.