Thank you. So I'd like to start with reflecting on where we are in the climate challenge right now. 2015 and 2016 saw record-breaking temperatures at the global scale again. Those were the first years to exceed one degree Celsius temperature increase at the global scale with the first months of 2016 scraping 1.5. We're in a world where the impacts of climate change are widespread. We see them in almost every aspect of the human endeavor. But we're increasingly seeing progress in the realm of climate solutions as well. The last few years have seen slowing of the global increases in emissions. We've seen acceleration in the deployment of clean energy technologies. And we now have the first universal climate treaty, the Paris Agreement, which entered into force last November. As the world slowly tips into an era of climate solution, that tipping will be one with lots of fits and starts and muddling through. But we know that knowledge will be continuing to be an important foundation for actions in terms of understanding what the risks are, what our options are, how we can learn and adjust through time, how climate intersects with other priorities. So today I'll reflect on the process of assessment, where assessment is an organized effort to take stock of what we know and what we don't and make it useful for decision-making. I'll draw from examples from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and tie that to projects we have ongoing here at Stanford. This is a visualization of the process of assessment. Key feature in terms of climate change assessment is that no one paper is going to solve the climate challenge. If it were, it would be beyond Nobel Prize territory. So what's happening in assessment is that the experts who come together are taking stock of really diverse evidence on any topic, pulling from different disciplines, different modes of analysis, different ways of viewing the world. And most topics related to climate change don't just span different disciplines. They step from science into society. So for assessment to be effective and to have influence, the participation of decision-makers in almost every aspect of this process is essential. A final lesson that we've seen in assessment activities happening over many decades now on climate and far beyond is that if the products are to have influence, make a difference out there in the world, this whole process is as important as the final products themselves. Through the course of the presentation, I'll dive into a few different aspects of this assessment process. First, highlighted in red here, how to think about the integration of evidence that is inherent in assessment and how expert judgment is applied in that process. The basic idea is that no numerical model-based result is a prognostication of the future by definition. And to figure out how it's relevant to decision-making, we need to pair those quantitative results with more holistic backdrops of understanding. A second key aspect of assessment is that it can unfold possible futures, worlds people might want or worlds they might get and need to deal with, and how those futures intersect with ongoing decisions and actions. And finally, there are the interactions that happen between experts and decision-makers in the assessment process at the very start, figuring out what questions knowledge might hope to be able to answer through to the finalization of the assessment products themselves. Through the course of the presentation, I'll draw examples from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular, so I'll just take a few moments to introduce it. You can think of the IPCC as a grand partnership between the governments of the world and the scientists of the world. The governments essentially say, you scientists, if you follow our rules, we will take your evaluation to be a definitive characterization of what we know right now and what we don't. In terms of those rules, you can think of them following in four broad categories. Sorry, I just realized these slides are exceptionally stretched out. Sorry about that. There are four broad ways that you can think about the IPCC rules unfolding. First of all, there's the mandate to be comprehensive. Experts aren't just representing their own knowledge in the process, their own results. They're taking stock of all of the knowledge that exists. For the Working Group 2 report we led out of Stanford, that meant there were nearly 15,000 publications in the assessment. Second, the major way that this comprehensiveness is achieved is through multiple rounds of monitored scientific review where anyone from around the world can submit comments on the reports. That meant that there were 50,000 review comments on the report we developed here. Third, the most unique part of the IPCC process is this line-by-line government approval, a UN-style session where scientists and governments work together for each sentence in the summary documents, determining if that's the most accurate, clearest articulation of what we know on that subject right now. Finally, all IPCC authors have tattooed on their eyeballs this mandate to be policy relevant but policy neutral. In terms of how things get really exciting in these government approvals, I would argue that policy neutrality is an impossibility when it comes to assessing climate responses, but nonetheless, that's the goal. The IPCC has been unfolding for decades now. The first report was released in 1990, stepping through to the present. The fifth assessment report came out in 2013 and 2014. The work is organized in three working groups, the first one looking at the physical science basis, the second one impacts adaptation and vulnerability, and the third one mitigation. You can think of this IPCC assessment process as representing a treasure trove of experiences in assessment. In terms of some of the things we learned in the fifth assessment report, it's the way you can quite easily create a media snowball around the so-called global warming slowdown that might not have actually happened. Pushing science into the limelight very rapidly carries risks as well as opportunities. But we also saw ways that the IPCC assessment in this last report underpinned key aspects of the Paris Agreement. For example, the structured expert dialogue that unfolded over years, considering the long-term temperature goal and evidence towards it. So I'll organize the presentation in three broad chapters. First, considering the integration of evidence that happens in assessment. Second, considering the ways that expert judgment can be applied through defined frameworks. And finally, considering that contested territory of the line-by-line government approval process that happens in the IPCC. In each of these chapters, I'll consider what has happened in the IPCC, strengths and limits what we can learn from it moving forward. And then I'll jump to Stanford and reveal some of the ways we've been pushing these different dimensions of assessment further in research here on campus. So starting with the integration of evidence. I'll particularly describe the way we use key risks and reasons for concern as two integrators in the IPCC fifth assessment report. These integrators were really important for shaping understanding across sectors, across regions, at the global scale of risk in a changing climate. These two approaches underpin the high-level statements about how risks evolve with continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases. These were statements like increasing magnitudes of warming, increase the likelihood of impacts that are severe, pervasive, and in some cases irreversible. This key risk and reasons for concern approach could extend across the hazard spectrum, starting with things like extreme events, the sharp end of the climate system where we often see some of the most profound damages economically and also in terms of human life. But the key risks and reasons for concern approach could also extend into more abstract dimensions of climate change risk. For example, the potential for large amounts of sea-level rise unfolding over centuries. So why is integrating evidence hard in assessment? To emphasize why it's hard, I'm going to draw on one example, and in particular sea-level rise. What this plot shows is the IPCC assessment of sea-level rise starting with the 1990 report extending to the fifth assessment report published in 2013 and 2014. In each of these bars, we see an expert assessment for the amount of sea-level rise that could occur in year 2100 compared to a variety of late 20th century baselines. Something interesting happened in the fourth assessment report, the 2007 report. If you asked experts at this time what did they think was happening with the upper estimate of sea-level rise that could occur, they probably would have put the number above the 2001 assessment. But instead, this is the number that was reported in the assessment process. This is a confusing moment. Risk was actually higher, but they reported this lower estimate. So what happened? At this time, there was an increase in our understanding of ice sheet loss, the dynamics of the ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica. And what became clear all of a sudden through remote sensing, on the ground observations, the dramatic collapse of Larson B in the Antarctic Peninsula, was that sea-level rise was actually happening faster than the scientists could explain on the basis of their process-based models. They knew they weren't able to determine the processes that were leading to ice sheet loss at that moment. So what did they do in the assessment? They decided to report the numbers they understood really well and leave out dynamics of ice sheets. This essentially was, as one ethnographic study of the author teams, the author's deciding if you don't know what the number is, you have no business giving it, classically Type 1 error version that you see in these types of assessment processes. So this is a classic challenge in assessment. What do you do when, by definition, numerical model-based results aren't a prognostication of the future? In parallel to the sea-level rise assessment we've seen through time something very different, reasons for concern. And what I'll build in this section is how this type of integrative framework provides a complement to the quantitative numerical-based result. And in this framework, the authors could discuss and evaluate the high risk of ice sheet loss, the potential for large magnitudes of sea-level rise that would be associated with extreme societal vulnerability and exposure and potential irreversibility. These reasons for concern built on the key risks and both of them were underpinned by a focus on risk. Increasingly there is recognition that responding to the climate challenge is very much a challenge in understanding, managing and reducing risks. The basic idea here is that we're never going to be in the position where we can say exactly what the impacts of climate change are at any one time in any one place but we know that the odds are shifting. We defined risk in the AR5 really broadly to encompass different definitions of risk. Risk was defined as the potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and the outcome is uncertain. You can think of risk of climate change impacts as emerging from the overlap of three different factors. First you need the hazards, the physical trigger from the climate system, whether that's a heat wave, a drought or a flood. But the climate system alone is not enough to give you impacts that matter. It's how those hazards intersect with the vulnerability and exposure of people and ecosystems. You can think of this as being equivalent to probability times consequences. This focus on risk is helpful for a variety of different reasons. First of all it emphasizes that many of the aspects of what's at stake in a changing climate, both in terms of the risks of impacts but also the risks of responses comes down to complex interactions. These are interactions where some of the things that are hardest to deal with will remain at the periphery of our analytical capabilities. Second this focus on risk help ties our current experiences with the climate system to how those outcomes may change into the future. Here in California for example we've thought a lot about our ability to deal with drought or how to deal with heavy rain events following an intense period of drought. Third a focus on risk helps emphasize that low probability outcomes matter. When we get in a car we feel comfortable buckling our seatbelt not because we will get an accident but because that is a low probability outcome that if it were to occur it would carry high consequences. And finally this focus on risk is helpful because it really emphasizes that the entirety of the human experience is about decision making and under uncertainty not just our climate responses and there are many different tools that we can borrow from security and insurance and business and law and apply them to the climate challenge as well. So this is the focus on risk. The key risk layer was then a series of criteria that could be applied in the assessment to integrate evidence. These were criteria really aiming to identify outcomes most deserving of society's attention in a change in climate. These were particularly targeting severe impacts relevant to dangerous climate change where the ultimate objective of all of the international climate negotiations is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference. These key risk criteria were for things like the importance of the affected systems, the potential for irreversibility, limits to responses. And the key risks were then evaluated through time. What this shows here in the black squiggly line is the warming that has occurred to date, that one degree Celsius of warming and projected warming for a scenario of continued high emissions that could take us to over four degrees temperature increase in this century as compared to a scenario of very ambitious mitigation which could keep us under two degrees Celsius with a good chance. And in terms of time frames for responses, what we see is that over the next few decades even if we're incredibly ambitious about mitigation, reducing our emissions of heat trapping gases, there's warming that is baked into the climate system to which we all need to adapt or to suffer as John Holdren likes to say. At the same time, the choices we make now about mitigation are pivotal for shaping the amount of warming that happens in the long-term, a longer-term era of climate options. The key risk assessment considered how risks evolve through these different time frames stepping from the present to the near-term with that baked in warming to the long-term with those climate options, considering risk levels with a continuation of current levels of adaptation and also risk levels with substantial investments in adaptation. Recognizing that when we think about how much we could prepare for impacts into the future we have to grapple with many different kinds of constraints. What will the access to financial resources be? What will the limits to thermal tolerance be, especially when humidity is changing simultaneously? We also have to consider the ways that the response portfolio may expand as people will become better at moving assets or economic enterprises. The key risk assessment looked at 142 key risks across sectors, water, ecosystems, urban and rural areas, livelihoods and poverty, conflict, across all regions of the world, from Africa to small islands, Arctic, North America. And what this really helped emphasize was that there are a lot of commonalities in terms of what's at stake in a changing climate. These are things like risks of food and water insecurity, risks coming from extreme events, risks for biodiversity and ecosystem loss. But the particular particularities that emerge in different contexts provide openings for responses. These key risks were then assembled together to support the global scale assessment of five different reasons for concern. This version of the reasons for concern figure is not the one we published in the IPCC report. Instead in this version we've lifted up the hood and shown how those 142 key risks supported a global scale assessment of risk in a changing climate. Where these icons on the embers are individual key risks and these bubble gum drops here represent eight different aggregations of the remaining key risks. So now what are the reasons for concern? There are five global scale reasons for concern because values matter. There's no one way to measure what's at stake in a changing climate. Different people put different emphasis on outcomes for the present versus the future, the rich versus the poor, things that you can put in monetary terms versus things that you can't. Across the reasons for concern, whether they have to do with geographically confined systems like coral reefs or the unfairness factor, the unevenness of impacts or the potential for game changers, we see that risks go up substantially to those levels of severe, pervasive and potentially irreversible outcomes at the global scale with continued high emissions in this century. But in terms of some of the lessons for key risks, what we see also is that there are relatively few key risks that appear on the embers. There are relatively few key risks where we can say here's where we go from noticing impacts to severe impacts. Or here's where we go from severe impacts to impacts to which we really cannot adapt. This has a lot of implications for in turn how we think about risk management. Do we adopt a wait and see approach? Maybe things will be fine with the West Antarctic. Or are we precautionary? Are we cognizant of the fact that we don't know exactly where different thresholds lie? So this is a global scale integration framework developed on the basis of multiple criteria. And what I'd like to do now is make a first jump from global scale assessment to Stanford. And what I'll emphasize is the way that multi criteria frameworks for integration can be helpful not just at this global scale, but also in terms of more specific context. So in work led here at Stanford by Miyuki Hino, a second year PhD student in EIPER, she's taken stock of management retreat. Where management retreat is the strategic relocation of people or assets or the abandonment of land to manage natural hazard risk. Management retreat is a controversial adaptation option, mostly because people for example don't want to leave their homes until they think their lives are in danger and then they really want out of there, but the government resources may not be available. There are 27 well documented cases with management retreat to date. They're trying to relocate for decades with extremely little success to buy backs from FEMA post disaster. And what Miyuki did was a multi criteria evaluation of these 27 ongoing or completed efforts to move that have relocated 1.3 million people to date. And on that basis she developed a conceptual model. Where this is a conceptual model like the reasons for concern that almost by definition in being a conceptual model it's a gross simplification. That nonetheless is really helpful for understanding the full landscape, for understanding some of the aspects that fall between the cracks of individual lines of evidence. So in this conceptual model it's oriented towards management retreat as a negotiation where you have residents who either are initiating the move or they're not. They view the risks as tolerable or intolerable at the start. And they're in interaction with an implementing party, typically a government. And what we see here is that for something like management retreat where there's this contested version or understanding of whether people want to move or not, there's a high upfront cost and then it's very cheap after that. Our evaluations of physical risk or the economic costs are not necessarily a very good predictor of whether management retreat ever makes it onto the table or if it does it's likelihood of success. But viewing management retreat as a negotiation through this conceptual model you have a better understanding of the likelihood of implementation. For example these self reliant Alaskan villages or small islands in the Pacific that have had a very hard time implementing retreat. As compared to circumstances of mutual agreements like those FEMA buyouts where alignment of interest increases the likelihood of an outcome occurring. And then over here in terms of mandatory resettlement where we've seen the most people move to date but there's also potential for debated outcomes if the incentivization doesn't happen well in implementation. Okay that's chapter one. In chapter two which is much shorter I'll consider the process of expert judgment in assessment. Why is this important? As scientists we're rarely in a circumstance where we can say we know the outcome with a hundred percent certainty. We use lots of fudge words like something may happen it is likely it is possible it's not inconceivable etc. But in assessment what you really want to do is come up with conclusions that can be compared across very different disciplines very different topics. So what the IPCC has done over the decades is use different categorizations to communicate the level of expert judgment around findings. In the third assessment report it was the first assessment report with guidance that was applied consistently across all of the working groups. That guidance was developed by Steve Schneider and Richard Moss. Stepping forward to the fourth assessment report that guidance was revised. So what did this 2007 report look like? Here we see the three working groups for the physical science basis impact, adaptation, vulnerability and mitigation and then the synthesis of them. And this is the uses of different scales for characterizing expert judgment. Working group one used a lot of likelihood describing the probabilities of different outcomes. Working group two used a little bit of likelihood but a whole lot of confidence which was a lighter probabilistic scale that drew back to that Schneider and Moss guidance. And that Schneider and Moss guidance had described expert judgment as a process of Bayesian updating where these are subjective probability judgments. Working group one wanted nothing to do with subjective probability adjustment so they stuck with likelihood whereas working group two used this confusing mixture of both of them. And then finally working group three studying mitigation said behavior is fundamentally different from thermodynamics and there's no way we're going to assign probabilities to technology development through time, the likelihood of different policies unfolding, governments collapsing, etc. So what you had at this time in the IPCC was an academically interesting mixture of different approaches lining up with different types of evidence but it was super confusing for readers of these reports. So at the start of the fifth assessment report cycle in an effort led by Mike Machandrea now at Carnegie Science, we revised the guidance. And in particular we clarified the relationships between these three different scales emphasizing that evidence and agreement was always the base on which confidence in a qualitative scale could be used to characterize findings and finally where possible there was likelihood. The likelihood of different outcomes occurring. And this works. All working groups used all three scales and finally there wasn't confusion about what's confidence, what's likelihood and there was a much better match between the nature of evidence in each working group and what scale was applied. But I think what's interesting also in reflecting on how this worked was that it was a big step forward for the IPCC but it also was a complex compromise framework. We started into this process with every working group saying we will not abandon our favorite scale but we're willing to work from there and you can actually imagine assessment moving into the future where IP best or the national climate assessment has picked pieces of the IPCC scale that you could actually push this towards a more simple more rigorous framework by collapsing those three likelihood three scales potentially into two potentially even into one. So in this realm of expert judgment moving forward I think we see ways that frameworks for evaluation will continue to be really important and the sweet spot is aiming for something that is both simple and rigorous easy for experts to understand easy for readers to interpret. A realm of assessment that's received relatively little attention in particular in the IPCC context but even elsewhere is that individual expert judgment is distinct from collective expert judgment group deliberations. What the IPCC process has represented is essentially collective expert judgment and we've had very good evidence for decades not just in terms of experts broadly but in terms of experts in the IPCC that when you put experts around the table you tend to get both overconfidence and conservative judgments. You're really sure it's not going to be as bad as you might think it is if you were to elicit experts in an individual sense. This type of dimension is actually really important because you get a lot from those collective group deliberations but you don't want them to overly prescribe the range of possible futures and I think there are a lot of opportunities in the IPCC and outside for combining the best of individual expert judgment. And finally communication is the ultimate goal here and it's really easy for very complex frameworks of expert judgment to push towards very opaque overly decorated statements and that's in some ways the key tension to grapple with. Okay, in the second chapter I'm again going to make a jump to Stanford and I'm going to make a jump to Stanford in a part of assessment where the IPCC process in some ways punted on expert judgment in the last round. This is a schematic visualization of results from integrated assessment models reported in the working group 3 report. And what they show in the black, well first of all here you've got emissions to date. And then what they show in this black line is the median estimate across scenarios for scenarios that are likely to keep warming below two degrees Celsius. Given the sheer carbon budget math in some ways the most breathtaking aspect is that they reach net zero emissions at the global scale in the second half of the century. But in the IPCC reporting which tended to be this black line also what you missed was the degree to which there were direct emissions that remained and the gross negative emissions were substantially greater than these net negative emissions. What happened here in these stylized economic models is that there was a huge reliance on negative emissions technologies in particular biomass energy compared with carbon capture and storage. This huge reliance essentially doubled the carbon budget that remains and made it cheaper and easier within the model environment to keep warming below two degrees Celsius. There's been a lot of attention to the expert judgment that happened here where the authors have said it was a lot easier just to report these numbers as compared to really making the judgments in terms of what they entail, essentially the can-kicking ethics if we plan on that amount of negative emissions that we're now. So what we've been doing in a series of projects is really right sizing our expectations around carbon dioxide removal. The way that there are stewardship-based approaches whether it's improving our management of forests or restoring our coastal environments that tie tightly to co-benefits that can be deployed in the near term but where we probably don't want to bet on there being 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide removal at the end of the century. We've been looking at the potential for biomass energy paired with carbon capture and storage and again the way that there are easy near term next steps that are cheap in many options but again where we don't necessarily want to bet on there being 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide removal at the end of the century and finally thinking about things like direct air capture where that RD&D agenda is incredibly important in the near term where they may play a big role in the long term but again where we don't necessarily know when we might be able to plan on 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide removal as we saw in those IPCC results. In this last part of the talk I'll focus in on science policy interactions that happen in the IPCC in particular the interactions that happen in that government approval of the IPCC summaries for policy makers. These policy maker approval sessions are UN style sessions where the scientists are on the podium, the co-chairs of the working groups are leading the session and the governments are out there in a sea of government flags there are 195 governments in total and usually about 130 or more of them show up. You put sentence number one from the summary for policy maker up onto the board and it goes open for comment and any government can raise a question a concern pressure test the moment if things are really getting hairy and you discuss that sentence until there's agreement in the room that is the clearest most accurate articulation of what we know on that topic right now. It's a highly formalized interaction there are rules of the game there are processes like contact groups if you can't get to consensus in the full auditorium. There are things like informal huddles here for example where we see at the very center of this circle Brazil South Africa Switzerland US and Ireland and peeking in from the shoulders we see some of the scientists like Rob Stevens a very prominent distinguished economist from the Harvard Kennedy school who's going to reappear in a moment. These have been very challenging processes through time but they also have been essential for the ownership of science the influence of the IPCC process. Jumping back to 2014 the working group three approval looking at mitigation of climate change right in the run up to the Paris agreement met with a lot of challenge in this approval process and in fact there are some substantial failures of the process. Consensus was not achieved for large parts of that document. In the media just after there was a lot to do about what happened in that approval plenary for example a series in science asked did the summary for policy makers become a summary by policy makers. Rob Stevens in a blog in a series of letters back and forth asked is the IPCC government approval process broken. Other prominent economists also described in the media said that they were still shaking and depressed personally from this episode. Just two weeks earlier we'd had our working group two approval and it seemed like some of the working group two authors by contrast had drunk the Kool-Aid. John Barnett a human geographer said I'm awestruck I've never seen anything like it and I doubt I ever will and I know the full context isn't here but his connotation was positive in the statement. The working group two co-chairs pushed back and said this is not about scientific prowess it's about navigating a social process and if you want to guarantee failure you should say things like I'm a scientist and therefore I'm right governments will really show you who's in charge of this process. Stepping back into time Steve Schneider's memoir in 2009 was entitled science as a contact sport where the contact sport was this approval process. Stepping back to 2001 similarly there were questions about whether these processes were consensus science or consensus politics. So despite all of the attention to these invigorating and grueling and unique government approvals no one had actually ever evaluated how documents change as they go through government review and approval. So that was what we did and we found not surprisingly that the summaries for policy makers always get longer as they go through government approval but they don't always get longer in every single part and so what this figure shows is policy makers for the 2007 report and the 2013-2014 report across the three working groups. What happened to paragraphs, how many words were gained in paragraphs that expanded or were added paragraphs in yellow here that were rearranged and in red paragraphs that contracted or were deleted entirely. There are two approval plenaries here that really stand out for having lost material. This is the working group two 2007 approval and that working group three oops, that working group three 2014 approval. In the working group three approval here there were ten figures showing emissions of countries categorizing countries by income groups or regions, ten figure panels that were dropped. Rob Staven's section on international cooperation met with a total failure of international cooperation and was reduced to 33% of its initial length it looked like a balloon had just been dropped. But also we see ways that you can make comparisons. We brought Rob Staven's box back in the synthesis report and it made it through in its entirety. In the synthesis report approval we lost the box on dangerous climate change, the ultimate objective of the international climate negotiations that we were able to get through in the working group two approval in a much different form. Granted we made the slightly challenging choice here of getting that box through by driving it to 4 AM on night number five day process. So what we see is that this is a process where there will always be political sensitivity and there can be failures of consensus around that but that in many ways it's individuals navigating a very complex science policy domain where the outcome is not really a one-to-one correlation with the topic. I won't show the database versions of the subsequent conclusions but here just to recap that last slide we saw that the documents almost always get longer unless you meet with a consensus failure. We also looked at the ways that revisions differ when scientists work with other scientists as compared to scientists working with decision makers. One thing that was not that surprising was that there aren't actually all that many changes that happen in these in-person approval plenaries when scientists are working with decision makers probably because you can spend hours on any given sentence but what was interesting was that scientists working with scientists tend to focus on accuracy and whether the wording was crystal clear. When scientists were working with decision makers the mode of revision shifted heavily towards putting in examples that explain the high level abstract conclusions. In a third suite of analyses we looked at the readability of documents. There was a recent study that announced with great fanfare that IPCC policy makers summaries are really hard to read compared to tabloid newspapers. No duh but you know Washington Post picked this up so what we did was look at a variety of readability metrics metrics that span from what are commonly used for children's textbooks through to metrics that get at harder level reading and we compared the summary documents to more appropriate reference texts in particular climate change analysis documents that have been heavily worked over by science writers and what we found is that these documents are definitely for grownups. They don't pass that super easy reading metric but they're probably readable for policy makers and that they are about as readable as the best of what you can get by embedding science writers in the process with the exception of the fact that they had more jargon than they ideally should have. In terms of how readability approved through approval process there were some interesting dimensions in terms of what you would expect to make documents more understandable to non-scientists. Finally I think we have clear understanding that this will remain very contested and challenging science policy territory but that is territory that adds value to the scientific landscape. So I will close by saying this IPCC process is a very formalized science policy interaction and in my final jump back to Stanford I'll describe a series of efforts we have underway that are more about the informal interactions that can happen in science policy spaces here in California in particular looking at the role of land in the state's actions towards its 2030 goals. The projects under this natural lands effort are diverse spanning from how drought is affecting redwoods in the state and has historically in May into the future. Looking at things like different management interventions that can be applied to increase carbon stored in soil and by how much. And in terms of the one I'll mention in a bit further detail the first one that's come through to conclusion evaluating the state's carbon offset program for forests. In 2013 California put into place an offset protocol that participates as part of the carbon market with projects running back to 2001 39 projects in total. Offsets present a lot of really important questions. For example to what degree should we enable them to substitute for direct decarbonization of our energy system? To what degree should we allow them to substitute when they provide benefits elsewhere as compared to the air quality benefits that can come from reducing our emissions here in the state? Offsets also raised questions in terms of how we guarantee that when you put money into the program you're getting emissions reductions equivalents that wouldn't have happened otherwise and that those are there for the long call. So what Krista Anderson has done a third year PhD student in EIPER is evaluate this program in real time as it's getting underway. And what she's found is that as a first benefit the program is relatively small. It's not taking the eye off the ball in terms of the overall carbon market. She's evaluated a suite of different metrics for considering additionality. Who would you expect to be the forest owners? How would you expect their behavior to be changing through the implementation of this project? Really understanding ways that we see a diverse suite of indicators for additionality. And perhaps most interestingly she's looked at the way that the conservation paradigm has been inverted in these forest offset programs. Land would not be conservation oriented in many different circumstances are taking place in sustainable forest management for example for the climate benefits to get the forest offset program participation but that's yielding a whole suite of co-benefits related to conservation for example in terms of water quality protection, biodiversity or recreation. So in terms of the territory I've covered I've described assessment these organized efforts to make sense of what we know and what we don't know is relevant to decision making. Many of the aspects here in terms of integrating evidence, applying expert judgment, exploring possible futures and interacting with decision makers are the challenges of assessment but they're also the opportunities. And what we're working on in the suite of different projects moving forward is how to try some different approaches and to evaluate them in real time. And with that I would be happy to take any questions. Katherine thank you for giving us an insight on how the AC and how the process works and the outcomes that you just presented. So as tradition goes we'll open it up for questions to students first and then and then there are others. Any questions from students? Yes. Hi my name is Emma Hutchinson I'm an undergrad here. I was just wondering about your opinion that we're kind of in this post-truth era especially in this country where a lot of the citizens and unfortunately a lot of the policy makers don't really kind of take this science as fact and that knowledge doesn't have the same kind of role. So what's your opinion on you know based on this kind of cultural phenomenon that's happening how might that influence the IPCC's science policy process as well as the communication coming out of that. Might that influence at all how their trying to navigate that? Really good question. I mean in terms of how the current US moment could affect the IPCC funding is not a relevant question even beyond the cultural dimensions. I think one thing that was really interesting participating in the IPCC was that growing up in the US I was surrounded by climate change skepticism in almost every aspect of the climate challenge and what I was learning about. Stepping to the global stage what's fascinating is that skepticism is exceedingly Anglo. It's US, Canada, UK, Australia.  But aside from that we see very strong understanding that climate change is happening, that there are opportunities in the responses and that ranges from China to all of Africa very very prominent on the global stage. I think that would be the hopeful thing to turn to. Here in the US we have seen profound ways that knowledge has been pivotal to our economies, to our jobs, to our national security back and I think as individuals and as scientists our current moment raises a lot of questions about how scientists should engage when that role of knowledge in society is threatened. I think assessment still plays a really important role in that when I have skeptics in the audience or when you're really trying to say what do we know right now and what we don't having a process where experts have come together 800 in total and really said here's what we know has happened that type of thing ends up being really important as compared to individual papers that are cherry-picked here and there. Great question. Any other students? Questions? Students? Alright, going going gone beyond the students now. Alright. So one of the criticisms of IPCC I've seen for quite a while is that not only are they very bureaucratic and clinical but they pick scientific approaches or areas to study and authenticate on that aren't necessarily really the most important. For instance CO2 management is definitely important but one of the consequences of poor management will be methane emissions which are a farm and ocean acidification has only recently been taken up to my knowledge by IPCC groups and that's a 2030 extinction event. Who cares what the temperature of the earth is 2100 in the air when the oceans are dead by 2050? 23rd. So how do you how do we get IPCC to actually work as if it's not just a technical junket around the world every year or two and actually dealing seriously as a problem? Okay so the question is to recap it briefly was that IPCC is really bureaucratic how does that limit things in particular how do you think about the range of topics it can assess it's over emphasized negative emissions as I discussed and has it addressed ocean acidification and methane and could it become more relevant to issues around the world? I would say as a first starting point is that every assessment body has its strengths and has its limits essentially that's been characterized by the assessment space of how do you think about getting the science right making sure it's a credible scientific project process how do you get relevance right making sure it answers questions people care about and how do you create a legitimate fair process so that people who aren't participating can at least look at the process and say I believe that process should provide a good outcome a really classic thing is that you have trade-offs across those three different factors so the great strength of the IPCC is that you have this governmental ownership that's also by far its limit it cannot radically change its procedures through time because changing procedures requires consensus agreement of all the governments that said I think it's actually fairly good at getting a hold of what issues are relevant at any one time for example for ocean acidification indeed there's been an exponential increase in the amount of literature available over the last decade that's been corresponded to in the IPCC with an expert meeting on ocean acidification two chapters on ocean acidification impact in the last report and now a special report on oceans in the cryosphere things like methane have been treated across working groups and you can point to a lot of failures in the process but one of them perhaps is the fact that in a very comprehensive assessment little individual pieces get lost you can think about emphasizing those in special reports and you can also think about many different bodies that end up tag teaming onto the IPCC for example carrying that oceans assessment forward into science papers into European collaborations very broadly into special report requests coming back from governments Any other questions? Yep So many questions You mentioned 12 gigatons by the end of the year of urban dioxide removing was that a total sum of 12 gigatons because we're putting 10 gigatons per year into the atmosphere so removing 12 by the end of the century ain't going to have much of an effect but you talked about the fairness process of the IPCC which is really interesting and I appreciate how complicated it is to get a world government and all these scientists who all have different perspectives together but fossil fuel companies don't need to get together they can go and pollute the atmosphere at their will because no one can stop them so you're using the process of fairness to fight against a process that does what it wants to make the money it needs and I don't know how to resolve those but that's a big issue Okay, to recap the questions the first one was how do you understand those gigatons numbers I was referring to they got a bit confusing Number two, how do you think about something like the IPCC which is all about a fair process where scientists are really airing on the side of being conservative and by contrast industry is not going to have those same constraints So for the first one global emissions at present are 22 gigatons of carbon dioxide from land and industrial together and the results from the integrated assessment models are pushing towards 12 gigatons of CO2 removal by the end of the century so indeed that's a quarter of current emissions heading downward in the opposite direction and for this question of how do you think about the range of stakeholders relevant in a changing climate, indeed there's a whole lot of them and I actually think there are substantial opportunities for increasing the collaborations between science and industry, I think we've seen that here at Stanford through the GSET program which has been incredibly important in creating understanding across boundaries and you could even think of that unfolding in assessment processes more broadly, risky business was a first assessment effort in that direction and I think it could go a lot further Can I ask you a question, this is something we were chatting about before the seminar if you step back from the IPCC which I think are extremely valuable but look at this sort of societal feedback in terms of solutions and ask the question could we are there some research goals that we can create out of the risks that you see and for example could you change agriculture or photosynthesis in some way to reduce the carbon emission or absorb more carbon using photosynthesis do you think you can have being involved in the IPCC and now stepping back is there room for something else to be done in addition to IPCC to provide some of the R&D goals or other goals a huge yes in response to that, I think if you were to say what is the nature of IPCC assessment been in the mitigation space to date historically it has been incredibly economics focused oriented in its application surveying and the literature there's been relatively little in terms of engineers engaging in that process and I think that's part of the reason why we've been spending all this time talking about negative emissions emerging from stylized economic models where what you really want is that intersect of economists talking with engineers talking with people who are in the commercial space, people who are at that very early technology readiness level to figure out what does that mean for building things from the bottom up at the same time that we need to put our sites on the long term horizon where we might actually get and what that implies for policy needs in the near term I'm curious about is the incentive structure for scientists to work on and what is IPCC selecting for what is the scientists themselves selecting for, are they self-selecting and if so what is the incentive structure because all the faculty members I know are super busy and so I imagine this is a fairly time consuming process and so you know I understand some of them won a Nobel Prize so that's a good incentive but they didn't know that was going to happen so I guess I'm just curious to hear. Social science of IPCC. Yeah okay that's a really really wonderful question so this is a very time intensive process and I always would say that I had the best part of the deal in that I was one of the few people who was actually paid to work on these projects as a staff scientist, science professional in the process everyone else was doing it on top of their day jobs this meant that people were indeed sending emails at midnight or over the weekends and this is not necessarily something that is easily added into the landscape. We've done a lot of interviews of authors who have done these reports again and again and again and the ones who come back time and time again say they come back for the people interactions the knowledge creation that happens when you bring experts together the bonds that happen the way that this really transforms understanding of science and makes it relevant for societal decision making. That said in terms of scientists here at Stanford who participated in the process we've talked a lot about the inefficiencies in the process and something like the IPCC process is larded with inefficiencies that government approval the big strength of the IPCC process comes with all sorts of trade-offs so some people participating in the process get a postdoc or a grad student assistant that is paid for by their government and that really helps with the process and others don't. Some of the best IPCC authors were these few people in remote countries who are kind of exiled from the main scientific endeavor who are really bored with their day jobs and moving forward I think there's some really big questions about how do you make it worth it for scientists how do you provide them with adequate support and in addition what the IPCC process does is it puts scientists in charge of the process of assessment in a way that is actually not the best set of lessons that come from the expert elicitation the decision support space where you actually also want a lot more experts in the assessment process to help make sure that you don't get big inefficiencies in the group dynamics in particular. One last question yes Approval portion of this and could you comment on the role of individual players for a country not a country's position perhaps but maybe there's a small country with someone who is particularly out there or another country that just person decides they want to drag their feet or things of that sort how does that work and how do you assess it. Yeah really really good question so in the question in case everyone couldn't hear is what's the role of individuals versus governments in these government delegations so first of all every government delegate participating in the process says they are representing the position of their country and they'll even do things like they're walking out of the room calling home to get approval what I know from insider knowledge is that they love to play that up because it makes individual seem more important and the degree to which people are there on autopilot varies quite a bit although they are usually arriving there with for example in the US context 50 to 100 experts from the US having reviewed the report and provided the talking points that the individual there is needing to make the call on the fly. Another big inequality that emerges across the government delegates is that the really big countries or the countries that are really invested in this process will send 10 delegates they can monitor everything simultaneously when the sessions go through the night they take shifts and they actually are well rested whereas a lot of the small countries send one person who's there representing the whole report with really no ability once it goes into separate breaker groups to cover all of that so those types of interactions are really relevant part of what you get is different countries band together as really happens through all of the climate negotiations so all of the small island developing states all of Africa will come together and have positions it's also how you get things called ambushes where you can have an entire grouping of countries deciding that they've got the same issue at the same time and they really can pressure test the process. Well thank you so much for doing what you're doing it's an incredibly important job let's thank Catherine for your time. Thank you.


Hello my crafty friends and welcome back to a card making video. Today I'm going to share 7 cards using products from the latest release by Altenew. This way you can see most of the products in action and easier to choose what's best for you. This time the release is packed with really unique stamps and I absolutely love that. I'm starting with up and away, this is a really fun product and you can see the balloon from a different perspective as well as a smaller one. There is also a couple looking at the balloon as well as many sentiments. Just like always with all Altenew products you will get a leaflet in the stamp set that gives you some ideas on how you can work with it on a card but I'm planning to use the bigger balloon for an art journal. I absolutely love the big stamp that you get there so it would be a great focal point for my art journal and mixed media journeys. There are also matching products along with this set so you can get stencils. The stencils will help you to color easily both of the balloons so you will get four stencils for the bigger balloon and one stencil where you will find all the gaps that you need to color in the smaller balloon. And as always there are matching dies available. Now let's start with stamping. I'm using permanent ink to stamp that balloon because although I will mainly color it with a stencil because it is super easy but I will still need to color in the little basket at the bottom with my alcohol markers. For the balloon I decided to go with yellows and oranges. I think it would make a good contrast on the air in the front of blue sky. So I started with snapdragon then I went with sunny and I finished with marigold. However in these stencils you will find four different layers. For two of the layers I just went with the darker ink that I used marigold so I didn't use four colors. I absolutely love that now most of the stamps come with stencils that help you color them in. I don't really enjoy coloring my images with alcohol markers I prefer inking. That's why I love this technique so much. Still I need to color in the basket. I'm just using a matching color with the balloon. And I used the matching tie to cut it out. Now for my background I'm going to play with cloudy day 3D embossing folder. This is so unique I absolutely love the sky detail with the clouds that it gives you. I'm using just a piece of cardstock there and this I believe is by Simon's tab. I think it is only blue if I'm not mistaken. To help the design pop even more to break in more to life I'm going to do some inking. For that I'm using white pigment ink and my blending brush. Very lightly I go over those nooks and crannies. The white is going to grab where all those mountains are and it's going to help the design pop even more. Plus it gives that fluffy look on the clouds. For this technique to work just make sure that you don't load with ink your brush too much and also go very lightly over the cardstock. And one thing that I need to keep in mind since I'm working with pigment ink here I need to make sure that I leave this background aside to dry otherwise I'm going to end up with lots of smudging. At the bottom of this panel there is an area which is quite flat. This is where I'm going to stamp my sentiment. I went with the word dream from the same stamp set and I'm going to stamp that with embossing ink and apply white embossing powder. Now my card is almost finished. It's just a matter of putting things together. I'm going to stick this panel with foam tape at the back on top of my card base. Then here goes my balloon and I'm going to finish it off with an extra sentiment that says the sky is the limit.  Imagine all the possibilities playing with color for the balloon. You can even go rainbow order and you can add many more balloons on your sky for a really colorful outcome. Another favorite from this release is this stamp set Sea is the day. It gives you this part for the sea. There is a boat along with a lighthouse, clouds and many sentiments to play with along with a girl looking at the sea. You will also find seagulls. I find this is really great especially if you like to build nautical scenes. So I'm starting on a blue cardstock and I'm going to stamp the detail for the sea. Now for that you can either go with a different shade of blue so go for a tone on tone which would look great as well but for my design I wanted to have all the detail in white that's why I stamped that with embossing ink and then I'm going to apply on top white embossing powder and hit set it. Now I'm just going to use my scissors, follow the horizon and just cut along that white line. I did some very basic coloring on my boat. I went with red for the bottom of the boat and for the sails I just used light grey just to give a hint of shadow there but mainly keeping them white. Then I used the same color that was crimson that I used for my alcohol markers. Again I'm using crimson here to stamp the sentiment bon voyage on top of my panel and now with slightly darker ink that was velvet I only touched the bottom of the sentiment just to give it a little bit of a shadow. And now it's time to assemble my panel. I'm sticking down first the sea. I have foam tape at the back for some dimension. I'm also going to stick on top. Again I have foam tape here, the boat and I'm going to embellish the background with the clouds. And I do cut the excess cloud with my scissors and then stick it on another side of the card so that I have three clouds since I always like to work with odd numbers. Now this is where I decided that I want a secondary sentiment that's why I had to peel off the boat, no harm was done there. I'm going to stop my secondary sentiment again this is from the same stamp set and then put the boat back in place. A great card for those who love travelling and also includes a lovely quote perfect for my art journals since travelling is one of my favourite themes. Now I'm putting together a very simple card just to showcase the feathered French dye set. In this set you will find this bird that I'm using now and in three different sizes so this one that I'm using is the larger one but you will find two smaller ones included.  Just repeat the same technique, stamp the word shore which comes from the stamp set with the balloons and you end up with a stunning card in no time. And you see you don't always have to overthink or work too much on a card to make it beautiful and to have a big impact. One thing that I absolutely love about the journal is by Altenew is the absolutely unique stamps this time. This one is called spectacular adventures. Now this is going to be the exact opposite of the previous card where I did almost no work at all just die cut a bird so here I'm going to take you to the next level I'm going to have lots of fun with it instead of using just one of the glasses three of them on my card so that I can use all the different scenes included in the stamp set just to have fun and this way you will be able to see what you get. So here all I'm doing is stamping the glasses three times I'm making sure that I have enough spacing between them because I'm going to use the matching die to cut them out Of course you can make it completely flat like it looks here but also I have to pop those glasses on my panel Now I did stamp that one more time on masking paper this is masking paper I'm going to cut out the inside of the glasses I'm cutting out a little bit of that black line as well to make sure that I have enough opening and I'm actually creating a mask for the glasses The idea is to use this mask on my glasses so that I can easily ink them up with the background for the stamping later on Then I align the mask on top of the first glasses and I'm inking them up this time I'm going with pink for the bottom and then I'm going to add orange and add the top and you can go crazy with those color combos you can have your glass looking really cool for the second pair of glasses you will see I'm going with blues and purple at the top and then I'm going to peel off the mask one more time and you see my mask isn't holding too well it's already in three pieces but that's not a problem I can always easily put them back together after all I need these to hold just for three glasses So for the third one I went with orange and yellow at the top and I love how this is so cool and unique it's a stamp set that I have nothing like it in my stash and I have hundreds of stamp sets since this is my job and now that my backgrounds are ready let's start stamping the reflections which are absolutely stunning and they are going to turn this into looking so cool So the first one that I'm going with is the city, the row of buildings there I'm going to stamp that with black ink by the way I'm stamping everything with Altenew black pigment ink with a very dark black impression Now if you don't align them completely well it's not a problem, you see I have a gap at the bottom but I'm going to fill it in with my alcohol marker later on Now for the orange and pink background I'm going with the palm trees reflection and you know if you want at the end you can go ahead and add glossy accents on top to make them shiny if you like or even emboss them with clear embossing powder I didn't do it for this card but it would be a great effect at the end Now for the orange and yellow one I went with the third and last impression which is a landscape, just mountains and some trees There is a matching dye to cut them out which I used and to make my card look super cool I decided to use a black panel so that I have a big contrast with the sunglasses I'm also matching that with a purple to bring the purple of one of the backgrounds So these three glasses can be a focal point on different cards you can make three out of them However I decided to stick them all in a row and I already embossed the sentiment this comes from the same stamp set as the glasses with white embossing powder and I'm going to call this card done Super cool, absolutely in love with this stamp set Now the next card is going to be again quick and simple this time I'm using stencil let's play with stencils and inks this is the polka dot pads just two stencils that you layer one on top of the other and you can have so many different variations with that one I'm going monochromatic just using two different shades of blue however you can have every row with a different color if you like or another variation is to use one stencil with one color and then for the second stencil you can go with embossing paste with glitter paste just to add dimension and sparkle it's a great way to create your very own pattern paper using your favorite colors and all you have to do then on top is to just stick a die cut and you are good to go now I started with the first layer and I used icy water and now for the second layer shade which is winter lake by the way I'm working on my misty so that I can take advantage of that edge I just align the stencils with the bottom right corner and they fall exactly in the position that they should be so here is my background I'm going to cut it down to be slightly smaller than the standard size I die cut the word amazing and this has also the word as well as the shadow it's from the new all about you word die set you can mix and match different words from this one and I think they make great sentiments especially for very busy background like mine here so I'm adding some silver gems at the center of all those flowers and they match beautifully with the silver cutstock that I used to cut out the word amazing and this is going to finish off my panel all I need to do is to stick it on top of a standard card that's 4.25x5.5 and of course you cannot have an alternate release without wonderful flowers thumb set this is called sisters of the heart it gives you lovely bunches of flowers you will get the outline so if you are the type who loves coloring with your alcohol markers or any other coloring medium you will sure have lots of fun with that and I love that it comes with lovely sentiments that you can stumble on the inside of the card but you know me instead of coloring inside the black lines I prefer going with the matching stencils there are many stencils included in the set here I started with the leaves there are two layers for the leaves the first one is lime here the ink that I used then for the second layer I used the darker shade which is fresh leaf and also notice that I always use some masking tape to cover up any gaps if there are any in the stencils so that they don't make a mess this is especially important if you are working on a flat card I'm going to cut it out so if I have any smudges outside of the main design it's not a big problem and for all those pinks I went with inks from the cherry blossom set by Altenew I did die cut the whole bunch of flowers and then for the background you are going to be amazed I used the waffle diamonds 3D I'm using a cardstock which is on the lighter side and this is going to give me an amazing result it's so dimensional you almost have to use a foam tape at the back of all those mountains to save them from squashing if you put them back inside the card this is absolutely amazing just stunning that flower bouquet and this beautiful background dimensional background really make this card looking so stunning I finished it off with a simple sentiment and added a few gems and here are some close up photos and let's move on to the last card for today for this one I'm playing with mighty waves 3D embossing folder and this really is another showstopper you can see here the result cardstock it is just stunning absolutely love the design especially now that it is summer and I'm just playing here with colors trying different cardstocks and such I did die cut it from white cardstock here which is actually the panel that I will be playing with for this video today and I'm going to show you what I did to bring this beautiful texture into life so I'm going to use wax and this is wax mat by Prima the color that I'm using is patina blue I'm using a very stiff brush and the brush is completely dry so the technique I'm going for is dry brushing I'm going to lightly go over all the paper and you will be able to see how those mountains all the peaks in the design grab the wax I don't load my brush with too much product I prefer to go back again and again to build up the layers and the color instead of just going with too much and then I won't be able to move it around if you don't have a wax you can do this technique with your acrylic paints the thicker the acrylic paints that you have especially those in a tube the better the technique is going to look if you go with liquid acrylics for example it's going to be quite difficult because it tends to run on the inside of those embossed areas so you will not have paint only at the mountains but also in the valleys and then you will end up with a flat looking project again you can also use your brush to do that here I'm using my mini blending brush and I'm just introducing a second color slightly darker just to have some variation on the color I did use my scissors to fuzzy cut around the design and this is going to be my main panel I used foam tape at the back I'm going to stick it down and I do have dots of glue at the top of the wave so they don't pick out I don't want to do anything else on this card I think it looks stunning as it is all I did was to add a sticker sentiment and spread out along the waves a few gems and these were the cards for today as I was playing with products from the latest release by Altenew I hope this kind of videos are helpful as you can see the new products in action and hopefully you can choose what's best for you also make sure to visit my blog there is a blog hope going on for the new release with lots and lots of giveaways thank you all so much for joining me today and I hope that you had fun and that you got inspired


Oh, it's been a while since I've done a video. What should I do it on, eh? Is there anything interesting on YouTube? You gotta be joking. Bitch, what? This is... This is... This is BTS. Life goes on. Song. This song is... Not what I expected. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely love BTS. I freaking love them with my whole heart. I've been a fan of them since dope, okay? And now, that's along our sun. That's like since 2015 or 2014. That's dope, okay? I just wasn't expecting the song to be like this. And I absolutely love it. I really freaking love it. Like, seriously? So much. This song is just what I think a lot of people needed right now, because, you know, everything that's happening in the world, everyone's having a rough year. And I think BTS are here to help make everyone feel better through this song. This is just a chill song, which is helping everyone get through everything. And I seriously think BTS just know what to do for everyone. And I love it. But anyways, when the song first starts with the drum and acoustic guitar, I'm just like... I'm loving it.  But also, don't forget about that cool background singing thingy, because don't... Don't get me wrong. I am a musically talented person. The background singing thingy. That sounds cool as well at the start. Thank you BTS for just like, from just the instrumental helping me relax. And probably helping a lot of other people relax. So seriously, thank you. Then we get to Jungkook's singing, which is... So good. Sorry, I was getting a glass of water. Did you think I was peeing in a cup or something? But yeah, the singing from everyone just sounds so natural and beautiful. And the more the song goes on, the more connected I feel to BTS throughout the song. Then the, like an echo in the fast lyric happens. And I am here for that, because goddamn, that chorus is so beautiful, so good. I absolutely love it. Like, I can listen to this song so much because of how beautiful and natural and connecting this song is. Like, it is... Yeah, it's good. It's good. It's really good. But to be honest, I thought there wouldn't be anything more beautiful than Jungkook slapping everyone's arses. Oh, I was wrong. This chorus is just so much more beautiful than that, which is weird to say. I never thought I'd see something more beautiful than Jungkook going... Oh, oh yeah. Is that weird to say or am I weird? I don't know, but you know what, Jungkook, keep it up. But yeah, this chorus just makes me go... Thanks, sugar. Very sweet of you. But J-Hope! J-Hope! Who said your voice could be so ASMR for a song? I never thought I'd experience ASMR in a BTS song, so thank you. I appreciate it. But anyways, this song is a better version of Spring Day. And Spring Day isn't my top 10 songs of all time. Like, it's a beautiful song, so you know what that means? It means this is also my top 10 songs of all time straight away. Yo, it's Hello Wendy right now, and it makes my background look kind of weird. And I'm here for it. And I also can't wait to listen to the other songs from this album. I feel like they're gonna be freaking amazing. But yeah, from just two 99 New Zealand Dollars a month, my reaction to all of the other songs from the album will be available to the members of the channel. Same with my first time reaction. So if you guys wanna help me make this a full-time thing, then definitely think about becoming a member because you'll get one extra content and two, you would, I mean, extra content, to be honest. So yeah, if you wanna help me make this full-time, then please become a member today, and I swear it'll be worth the two 99 a month. Anyways, lyrics.  Like, we all know what it's about, right? Like, we all know what it's about, hmm? Cause if not, you're Patrick Star cause you're living under a rock. Like, for realsies, this song or the lyrics for this song are beautiful. Like, these lyrics are so heart-wrenching and so relatable for a lot of people out there, and I love it. And it all begins with the first lyrics. One day, the world stopped. And just from that, we all know this is about COVID-19, 2020, and oh, please stay safe out there, everyone, okay? I don't want any of you to get it, okay?  We got it pretty lucky here in New Zealand, but it can still happen again. And I don't want anyone out there to get that COVID-19 because it's not a nice thing, okay? So please stay safe out there. I'm begging you, please. But anyways, this song is more like a message, a sad message to the people of the future. Streets are raised off footprints. I'm in a world of pain. This cold of the world gave to me. There's no end in sight as they're way out. And there are plenty more lyrics like this, which are actually really sad, but really true, you know? BTS wrote this song to help everyone out there, help everyone around the world to get through this because they're just like us. They've been affected by COVID-19 and they're in the same situation as a lot of us. So they know how everyone else is feeling and they're letting everyone know that they're in the same boat and that we'll all get through it.  Seriously, so, so good. Thank you, BTS. Did I do that right? Did you go there? What's that? Are you? But seriously, these dudes are so freaking kind and I just want to thank them every single day and I seriously want to thank them every single day. So BTS, okay? Thank you for always being here for everyone. We love you. Choreography. Oh, there was no choreo in this music video. But like, does this count as the choreo? Because like, I'm gonna make it count as the choreo. Music video. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.  Like this is such a beautiful music video. It gives off the vibes that made me cry. Wanna ride a bike? Nope. Wanna go on a tour? No. Okay, that actually made me really sad when I saw that.  Wanna make me cry? Yep. But seriously. I can't believe you've done this. I thought we were friends. I thought we had. But seriously, the start of this music video, the faded color grading at the start with V wearing his mask, then taking it off. Ooh, that was, ooh, that was a great start to show how simple this music video is gonna be, how beautiful this music video is gonna be and how relatable this music video is gonna be. But the categorizing definitely made it feel like isolation, sadness, and relatableness. Because this is how everyone is seeing the world right now. And Jungkook did a great job for the start of this music video just from the categorizing and the opening shot. Seriously. He's such a good director. But yeah, I'm so glad the music video took a simple route because it just wouldn't fit. It just would not fit if it was overly dramatic. So many green screens, you know, awesome set design music video. It just wouldn't fit the vibes and it just feels more real. And it has actually made me want to watch Jungkook's other videos that he has directed because I've heard he's actually done quite a bit and I haven't seen a single one. So I'm thinking about watching all of those one day. I could do a reaction for that if you want, but I really just want to see his journey from where he began for directing to this music video because he's done a splendid job of this music video. But anyways, who are my top five favorite scenes of the music video? Jungkook wanting to go outside but knowing he can't. RM fingering his bike. V looking at the stadium when driving past it and BTS in the stadium performing. But yeah, Jungkook wanting to go outside knowing he can't. Oh man, just like when he walks up to the window, puts his hand on it and is just looking so sad looking out. You know, having his memories of the past or being able to go outside without fear or anything like that. It was, yeah, it was a beautiful scene. RM fingering his bike. Oh my God, that's so sad. I typed it out thinking it sounded perfectly fine, but when I say it out loud, it just does not. It just does not sound fine. What's the weather? RM fingering his bike.  But seriously, when RM looks at his bike seat and it's just full of dust, it shows that he hasn't even rode it in months and months and it's connected to so much dust. And then when he fingers that bad boy, when he fingers that bad boy and so much dust goes on his fingers and then he blows it in. It shows that his memories of the past, of the bike and now going into the future of now because of what COVID has done. Oh, it sounds so bad. Oh, RM fingering his bike. Woo. Sorry. V looking at the stadium when driving past it. When they drove past that stadium and V looked at it and then looked back. It showed the percussion, or the RM fingering his bike just came back to my head, baby. But yeah, how COVID canceled their world tour. It's a sad thing. Not just for BTS, but for the fans. So when we all saw V look at the stadium, it showed he misses us, he misses performing for everyone and he wants to do it again, but he can't because of COVID-19. And that's just, it's so sad. Like these scenes are so well done. Jungkook, you did a great job of RM fingering his bike and all these other moments. But seriously, it's directed so well showing how they want to do things, but they can't because of what's happening around the world. Now BTS in the stadium performing, the black and white scene of that entire thing. They're in the stadium, all dressed up, Jimin with his little wee angel wings. But yeah, then performing in an empty stadium was sad. It was really, really sad. I just feel bad for BTS now. It was just sad seeing them perform without performing in front of people, you know? But yeah, those were my five favorite scenes in the music video. And all I can say is this music video, this song, just everything about it is a blessing. Thank you BTS for making such a beautiful, relatable song. And thank you Jungkook for directing the music video and making it super relatable for us, especially the fingering the bike, super relatable. But you wanna play some Overwatch sometime? I'll let you carry me. I'm just that good though, I'll just let you carry me. But yeah, what I said at the start of this video, BTS know what to do for the people, which is why BTS is freaking amazing and will always be one of my favorite groups. They just make great content. They do just great people. And I just wanna thank them once again for this. So I can't wait to listen to the rest of your album, BTS. So thank you. And yeah, this is BTS, life goes on.


From Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE, covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019, brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts, everybody. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. I'm Dave Vellante, my co-host. Paul Gillan, Chris Lynch, good friend is here. CEO, newly minted CEO at AtScale, and legend. Great to see you, man. In my own mind. In my too. It's great to be here. It's awesome, thank you for taking time. I know how busy you are. You're running around like crazy. Your next big thing. I was excited to hear that you got back into it. I predicted it a while ago.  Yeah, 100%, 100%. I couldn't be more thrilled. I feel invigorated. I think I've told you many times when you've interviewed me and asked me about the transition from being an entrepreneur to being a VC. Since it's a PG show, I've got a different analog than the one I usually give you. Okay, hit me. So this is, I used to be a movie star and now I'm an executive producer of movies. Oh, okay. And now I'm back to being a movie star, hopefully. Yeah, well, so you told me when you first became a VC, you said I look for startups that have a 10x impact, either 10x value, 10x cost reduction. So what was it that attracted you to AtScale? What's the 10x? So AtScale addresses $150 billion market problem, which is basically bringing traditional BI to the cloud. That's the other thing you told me, big markets. Yeah, so that's the first thing, massive market opportunity. The second is the innovation component and when the 10x comes, we're uniquely qualified to virtualize data into the pipeline and out. So I like to say that we're the bridge between BI and AI and back. We make every BI user a citizen data scientist and that's a game changer and that's sort of the new futuristic component of what we do. So one part is steeped in that $150 billion BI marketplace and the traditional analytics platforms and then the second piece is into delivering the data into these AI machine learning platforms. And do you see that ultimately getting integrated into some kind of larger data pipeline framework? I mean, maybe it lives in the cloud or maybe on-prem. Well, how do you see that evolving? So I believe that with AtScale as one single pane of glass, we basically are providing an API to the data and to the user, one single API. The reason that today we haven't seen the delivery of the promise of big data is because we don't have big data. Fortune 2000 companies don't have big data. They have lots of data, but to me big data means you can have one logical view of that data and get the best data pumped into these models and these tools and today that's not the case. They're constricted by location, they're constricted by vendor, they're constricted by whether it's in the cloud or on-prem. We eliminate those restrictions. And the single API I think is important actually because when you look at some of these guys, what they're doing with their data pipeline, they might have 10 or 15 unique APIs that they're trying to manage. So there's a simplification aspect too, I suppose. One of the knocks on traditional BI has always been the need for extract databases and all the ETL that's involved in that. Do you guys avoid that stage? You go to the production data directly or what's the architecture? It's a great question. So the way I put it is we bring Moses to the mountain. The mountain being the data, Moses being the user. Traditionally, what people have been trying to do is bring the mountain to Moses, doesn't scale. So at that scale, we provide an abstraction, a logical abstraction between the data and the BI user. So you don't move the data? We don't move the data, which is what's unique and that's what's delivering, I think, way more than a 10x delivery and value. Yeah, because you move the data in place, you bring that value to wherever the data is, which was the original concept of Hadoop, by the way. That was what was profound about Hadoop. Everybody craps on it now, but that was the game changer and if you could take advantage of that, that's how you tap your 10x. Correct, so the difference is we're not, to your point, we're not moving the data. Hadoop, in my humble opinion, why it plateaued, is because to get the value, you had to ask the user to bring and put data in yet another platform, right? And the reason that we're not delivering on big data as an industry, I believe, is because we have too many data sources, too many platforms, too many consumers of data and too many producers. And as we build all these islands of data with no connectivity, right, the idea is, well, you know what, we'll create this big data lake and we're going to physically put everything in there. Well, guess what, someday turned out to be never because people aren't going to deal with the business disruption. We move thousands of users from a platform like Teradata to a platform like Snowflake or Google BigQuery, we don't care, we're multi-cloud and we're hybrid cloud, but we do it without any disruption. You're using Excel, you just continue to use it. You just see the results are faster. You use Tableau, same difference. So we had all the Vertica rock stars in here, we had Colin yesterday, we had Stonebreaker on earlier, Andy Palmer just came on and of course, Chris, you were the CEO who ultimately sold the company to HP that really didn't do anything with it and then spun it off and now it's back. I mean, Colin was, he had a spring and a step yesterday. So when you think about Vertica, the technology behind Vertica, go back 10 years and where have we come now? Give us a little journey of sort of your data journey. Yeah, so I think it plays into the original assertion is that Vertica was the best in class platform for analytics, but it was yet another platform. The analog I give now is now we have Snowflake and six months, 12 months from now, we're going to have another one and that creates a set of problems if you used to live in the physical world, right? Because you've all these islands of data and I believe it's about the data, not about the models, it's about the data. You can't get optimal results if you don't have an optimal access to the pertinent data. So I believe that having that universal API is going to make the next platform that more valuable, you're not going to be making the trade-off is, okay, we have this platform that has some unique capability, but the trade-off is, from an enterprise architecture perspective, we're never going to be able to connect all this stuff, right, and that's how all of these things proliferate it. So my view is in a world where you have that single pane of glass, that abstraction layer between the user and the data, then innovation can be spawned quicker and you can use these tools effectively because you're not compromising being able to get a logical view of the data and get access to it as a user. But today, that, you know, that's the... What's your issue with Snowflake? You mentioned Moogli's company. No issue, they're a great partner of ours, right? We only make the friction between a user going from an on-prem solution to the cloud. So Slutman just took over there, right? So you know where that's going. Frank's got the magic touch and, okay, good. So you said they're a partner of yours, how are you guys partnering? They're a partner, they refer us into customers that if you want to buy Snowflake, now the next issue is, well, how do I migrate? Well, you don't, right? And you put our virtualization layer in and then we allow you access to Snowflake, right, in a non-disruptive way, versus having to move data into their system or into a particular cloud, which creates sales friction. Yeah, I mean, moving data is just, you want to avoid it at all costs. And that's... I do want to ask you about at-scale because I met with your predecessor, Dave Mariani last year, and I know he was kind of a reluctant CEO. He didn't really want to be CEO, he wanted to be CTO, which is what he is now. How did that come about that they found you, that you connected with them and decided this was the right opportunity? Sure, that's a great question. So I actually looked at the company at the seed stage when I was in venture, but I had this thing, as you know, that I wanted to move companies to Boston. And they're about my vintage, age-wise. So, and he's married with four kids, so that wasn't in the cards. So I said, look, it doesn't make sense for me to seed this company because I can't give you the time you're out in California. Everything I'm instrumenting is around Boston. So we parted friends, and I was skeptical whether he could build this because people had been talking about building, you know, a heterogeneous, universal semantic layer for years, and it's never come to fruition. And then he read in Fortune or Forbes that I was leaving Accomplice and that I was looking for one more company to operate. And he reached out and he told me what they were doing that, hey, we really built it, you know, but we need help and I don't want to run this, and I don't, you know, it's not right for the company and the opportunity. So I said, I'll come in, I'll consult to you. And I put together a plan, and I had my Vertica and Data Robot and Tony guys do the technical diligence to make sure that the architecture wasn't wedded to the dupe like all the other ones were. And when I saw it wasn't, then I knew the market opportunity was to take that rifle and point it at that legacy $150 billion BI market, not at the billion dollar market of Hadoop. And when we did that, we've been growing at 162% quarter over quarter. We've built development centers in Bulgaria. We've moved all operations non-technical to Boston here down in South Station, and we've been on fire. And we are the partner of choice of every cloud vendor because we eliminate the sales friction for customers being able to take advantage of movement to the cloud. And we're able, through our intelligent pipeline and capability, we're able to reduce the cost significantly of queries because we understand and we're able to intelligently cash those queries. So sales ops is here? All sales, marketing, customer support, customer success, and we're building a machine learning team here, a dev team here. Where are you in that sort of Boston build out? We have an office on 7-Eleven Atlantic that we opened in the fall. We're actually moving from 4,000 square feet to 10,000 this month. So in less than six months. And we'll house, by the first year, 100 employees in Boston, 100 in Bulgaria, and about that same 100 in San Mateo. Are you going after net new business mainly or there's a lot of legacy BI out there? Are you more displacing those products? So a couple of things. What we find is that customers want to evolve into the cloud, they don't want a revolution, they want an evolution. So we allow them, because we support hybrid cloud, to keep some data behind the firewall and then experiment with moving other data to the cloud platform of choice, but we're still providing that one logical view. So I would say most of our customers are looking to replatform off of Teradata or something onto another platform like Snowflake. And then we have a set of customers that see that as part of the solution, but not the whole solution. So they're more true hybrids. But I would say that 80% of our customers are traditional BI customers that are trying to contemporize their environments and be able to take advantage of tabular support and multi-dimensional, the things that we do in addition to the cube world. So they can keep whatever they're using. Correct, that's the key. Yeah, same process. So did you do the series D? You did, right? Yes. Yeah, Morgan Stanley led it. So you're not actively, well, I don't know, but you're good for now, it was like 50 million. Yeah, we raised 50 million. So you're good for a bit. Who's in the Chris Lynch target? Like, who's the enemy? Vertical, I could say it was the traditional database guys, right? Yeah. So we're in a unique position. We're almost Switzerland. So we could be friend to foe of anybody in that ecosystem because we can non-disruptively re-platform customers between legacy platforms or from legacy platforms to the cloud. So we're an interesting position. So similar to the file sharing, file virtualization company. Copia, that's correct. Copia, yeah, so. So puts us, yeah, it puts us in an interesting position. So they need to be friends with us. And at the same time, I'm sure that they're concerned about the capabilities we have, but we have a number of retail customers, for instance, that have asked us to move them from Amazon to Google BigQuery, which we accommodate. And because we can do that non-disruptively, the cost and the ability to move is eliminated. So it gives customers true freedom of choice. How worried are you that AWS tries to replicate what you guys do, you know, you're in their sights? Yep. So I think there are technical, legal, and structural barriers to them doing that, right? So the technical is, this team has been at it for six and a half years, so to do what we do, they'll have to do what we've done. Structurally from a business perspective, if they could, I'm not sure they want to. Because the way to think about Amazon is, they're no different than TerraData, except for, right, they want the same vendor lock-in, except they want it to be the Amazon Cloud, and TerraData wanted it to be their data warehouse. Yeah, they don't want to promote multi-cloud, for instance. Yeah, they don't want multi-cloud, they don't want customers to have a freedom of choice. So would they really enable a heterogeneous abstraction layer? I don't think they would, nor do I think any of the big guys would, right? They all claim to have this capability for their system. Right, so it's like the old IBM adage, right? I'm in prison, but the food's got to get three squares a day. I get cable TV, but I'm in prison. Awesome. All right, parting thoughts. Parting thoughts? Yeah. Oh geez, you got to give me a question. I'm not that creative. All right, what's next for you guys? I mean, what should we be paying attention to? I think you're going to see some significant announcements in September regarding the company and relationships that I think will validate sort of the impact we're having in the market. Give you some leverage. Yeah, it will give us better channel leverage. We have a major technical announcement that I think will be significant to the marketplace, and will be highly disruptive to some of the people you just mentioned, in terms of really raising the bar for customers to be able to have the freedom of choice without any sort of vendor lock-in. And I think that that will create some sort of counter-strike, which we'll be ready for. Well, if you've never heard of AtScale before, trust me, you're going to in the next 18 months. Chris Lynch, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. It's my pleasure. Great to see you. Great to see you. All right, keep it right there, everybody. We're back with our next guest. Right after this short break, you're watching theCUBE from MIT. Right back.


If you were to read Dr. Elsie Woodman's sober and scientific treatise on the affair in the Michigan Medical News, you would know from its very tone that the facts recorded there, though they challenge the basic laws of nature, are nevertheless true. It is a strange and tantalizing account of a man who could not breathe. As a practicing physician in the town of Pawhawk, Michigan, Dr. Woodman had come to know most of his fellow citizens. But he had never heard of Arthur Underwood, not at least until that day in early September 1882, when one of his patients mentioned the man and his extraordinary powers. It's true, Dr. I tell you, I saw him do it with my own eye. And I was standing right next to him and I had my eye on him the whole time. All of which simply proves that his hand is quicker than your eye. But he didn't use his hands at all. I told you how he did it. And you examined the handkerchief before the experiment? Of course I did. Just like any other handkerchief. And afterward? Well, there wasn't much left of it afterward. Just a few charred embers. But I looked at those two and I couldn't see anything unusual about them.  Where did you say he lived? Out in the North Road. Got my horse and buggy outside if you want to run out and see him. All right. And I'll show you that he's nothing more nor less than an amateur magician. A half hour later, the doctor and his credulous patient monitored the steps to the porch of the Underwood home together. The doctor knocked at the front door. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Hello, Mrs. Underwood. You're boying in? Arthur? No, he ain't. He's back in the woods doing a little hunting. The two men made their way to the patch of woods behind the house. And there, among the trees, his rifles slung over his shoulder. They found young Arthur Underwood. Arthur, this is Dr. Woodman. I've been telling him about you and he's kind of skeptical. He doesn't believe you made that handkerchief burn the way you did. Oh, sure, doc. I can make anything burn that way. I always have been able to, ever since I was a kid. I'm afraid I'll have to see for myself, Arthur.  Yes, sir, doc. Yes, sir. You see, I just bend down like this and blow. And there's your fire. Before the doctors' astonished eyes, the pile of dry leaves burst into flame, ignited by nothing more than Arthur Underwood's breath. In a similar fashion, he lit paper in pieces of cloth. He rinsed out his mouth at the doctor's request. He submitted to the most rigorous physical examination. But nothing, nothing but all of the fact that it was his breath and his breath alone that started the fire. And it stands to this day as one of the major mysteries of science. Incredible, but true.