Weíre talking about this. Iím thinking about who the essential workers are. As Victoria said, when we think of who the essential workers really are, itís those without whom society could not function. If we had no farmers or veg pickers or shop workers, we couldnít eat. If we had no doctors or nurses or surgeons, when we got sick, we could die. If we didn't have refuse collectors, the streets would be piled higher and rubbish. These roles are completely essential for life. Ac mae'r termon wedi bod yn ysgrifennid o'r cyfrannu gwirionedd o'r ysgol iawn, yn gweithio bryd yn gyfrannu gwirioneddol, i roedd yn unig i'r gwrthoedd yn ddysgu'r byw, ynddo chi'n gwybod yw'r fwrdd yn ymgyrchol i gyd yn syniad y byd yw ymgyrchol sy'n ysgrifennid o'r byw, yn ysgrifennid o'r wyf yn gweithio'r cyfrannu gwirionedd. Yn gweithio'r gweithio'r cyfrannu gwirionedd yw'r ysgrifennid o'r helyn. ac mae'n gilydd i gyd yn ysgol yn ychydig o'r hunain bryd, mae'r hunain bryd yn ei wneud i'r oeddau yn yr haf. Rwy'n nhw'n meddwl, ac mae'n meddwl yw'r hyffordd yng Nghymru, oherwydd rydyn ni'n meddwl ar y cyfnod yn ysgrifennu, yn y fawr o gweithio yng Nghymru, a'r wych yn siaradol. A mae'r gweithio'n digwydd, bo'r gallu gyda'r Cyfwyr yn ysgrifennu ar y cyfnod o'r pandemau. Mae'n meddwl i'n meddwl, Hedge fund managers, CEOs, factory owners. If these people stop work, life would go on. The jobs that they do are not essential to living. And yet the latter are enumerated for their work with vast six-figure salaries, while the former are often only paid the minimum wage. And Tesco is a really great stark example of this. So in April they made 10.8 billion in sales off the work of their employees working in unsafe conditions in the shops. And this resulted in a 33% increase in the salary of the CEO. Those on the shop floor, in contrast, earned just 7.42 an hour. And the CEO's basic salary is already 355 times that of the lowest-employed average employee in their workplace. Never mind the millions that he received in extra bonuses. So what we can see with this is that clearly, very clearly, wages do not reflect how essential workers are to our society. Well, what about working conditions then? It's no better. Workers, nurses in particular, are working 12-hour shifts and have a really poor work-life balance. And conditions are actually so difficult since the Tories came to power in 2010. Over 200,000 nurses have left their profession. Shop workers are on zero-hour contracts, meaning that their hours are unreliable and they change every week. And social workers work some of the longest hours in the country. And there was a recent survey that showed about 70% of them don't take a break at all in their average working day. So the conditions for those who work these really essential jobs are tough and they are worsening. And again, the value that the current system places in these essential roles, it's just not reflected in the way that those workers are treated. And of course, all of these difficulties faced by the most needed workers in society are made worse as a consequence of COVID. Throughout the pandemic, those workers who are so essential to work carried on with inadequate PPE, doing longer hours than before and with the stress and threat of the virus to themselves and their families on top of that. Meanwhile, CEOs, the bosses of major companies were relaxing at home in their mansion, drinking wine in the gardens, far from the factory floors where we saw these mass outbreaks and even deaths, examples of which can be seen in the asos of boohoo warehouses, some of which are here in Sheffield and the factories in Leicester that we saw too. But they did get a clap. And that was essentially the only thanks that the workers who have been highlighted as the most essential in society received. And it's now those same exact workers, the ones who are most essential to our society and who were more valued than any others who are facing real-term or actual pay cuts, job losses, work sitting, working conditions, those basically who risked their lives continuing to work in lockdown. And contrast that pain condition that they're experiencing with the MPs who despite having the luxury of working from home throughout the pandemic, not to mention their shambolic failure to contain the virus and protect people, are receiving around about a 4.1% pay rise while NHS staff are receiving between two and three at best. So this question, this essential question that we're looking at is why is it that those who we as ordinary people prize most highly and who we've seen proven through the recent events of the pandemic and really always to be frank to be the most essential in society are paid so little and treated so poorly when those who's absolute complete stoppage of work had no immediate impact on the running of society earning so much, there is a contradiction here and to really answer that question we need to understand the contradictions in the capitalist system itself. Capitalism is not a system for the satisfaction of needs, it's a system that exists for the production of profit and as long as profit exists it will come before all other needs. So we need to look at how profit is produced and why it is such a problem in the way of us having key workers and to understand that we're going to look at the way that we produce of the capitalism to understand this disparity between those who we see as essential and those who are essential to capitalism. So capitalism is a system based on the production of commodities and commodities are items that are produced explicitly for the purpose of exchange, not immediate consumption. So that's basically the difference between you producing carrots to be sold at a supermarket compared to growing carrots in your garden that you're going to use yourself. In the first instance, you're grooming them in order to sell them because you want to sell them, to exchange them and to make money from that and then obviously in the second one it's so that you can use them for yourself. Now the commodities that are produced are generally are not produced because we need them although they do still fill the need as I'll explain in just a minute. They're produced because they're going to bring a profit through the exchange of them for the producer and as a consequence of this type of production which we have in capitalist production, the system is not based on the satisfaction of people's needs. Jobs are not created on the basis that there's a gap that needs filling and products are not created because we have a great need for them in society but because profit can be made through their sale. I think a good example of this is when we look at food, we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people comfortably and yet there are people starving. So there is a need for people to be fed but that need cannot be fulfilled despite having the capacity to do so because it wouldn't turn a profit because those people cannot buy the food that's being produced. I think another good example is that we have no need for more greenhouse gas emitting card but I saw a statistic on just all that estimated there are 20 million unsold cars in the industry at the minute and production continues, although slowed. So as can clearly be seen through I think particularly the example of food need does not come into the question of capitalism. The drive for profit comes before all else and capitalists will only invest their money into a venture if there's a profitable market for those goods so investors can get a return on their money, increase their profit and then turn to the next profitable venture and they have no care within that system and structure whether we need a new iPhone or for example if there's a need in society for ventilators as we've seen recently and this is because if a capitalist didn't invest competitively they would be outcompeted by another capitalist and so that means that only the workers who produce or contribute to the production of commodities that will return a profit for the capitalist so basically only those workers who can be exploited and their labour power used to generate exchange values are seen as productive to capitalism and that's what makes them essential to capitalism. So right now we can all agree that there's a very clear need for more nurses and more doctors for more care home workers, for more social workers and for more teachers in order to ensure that all those who are ill with COVID can be cared for adequately and so that key workers aren't working overtime to cover for these staff shortages but NHS workers only have real value to others people. All those jobs that I outlined only have value to others real people and they're not valuable to capitalists. They cannot turn a profit out of their labour unless they're in private institutions and that really is why we're seeing this big push to privatise large parts of the NHS even in education as well in recent years. I'll come back to develop this a little bit more in a moment but commodities then have this use value that I mentioned I would return to earlier. If a commodity doesn't have a use value it can't be sold so it won't be made. So the utility of a product is essential and this is known as its use value but that utility is not a measure of the exchange value that it brings about although it is essential to it. We can see this through the fact that things with a great use value for example air and water don't bring high exchange values but things with a little use value for example gold can have a great exchange value. So there's no direct link between exchange and use value here. So we exchange these different use values but again it's not the usefulness of a thing that causes the exchange.  And therefore you can't compare the use of commodities by their use, use value is really subjective. So it makes us really question, okay well how do we exchange commodities if we can't exchange them based on the quality of being useful or not? So there has to be something common to all commodities that enables us to compare and therefore exchange them. And profit doesn't come from just this exchange of the commodities buying something cheaply and selling it on for a higher price doesn't bring about that wealth creation as if the act of the sale is where the profit comes from. Really what's happening is that the capitalist starts with money, they buy their commodities, they sell the product and they end up with more money than when they started. But simply circulating the goods isn't producing the value because what was gained in selling something for a higher value is then lost in buying another product from another seller at the increased cost to making it the same as if the products were just bought and sold at the same amount generally and an overall way of speaking. So where does profit come from then? Well in capital markets states, in order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, money bags must be so lucky as to find within the sphere of circulation in the market a commodity whose use value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value whose actual consumption therefore is itself an embodiment of labour and consequently a creation of value. So, as I said, the capitalist must be able to buy a commodity that produces value that creates surplus value through its consumption and this is found in labour power. A worker doesn't sell their labour to a capitalist, they sell their labour power and that's their capacity to work within a set amount of hours regardless of how much they get done which means regardless of how productive they are during that time. And it's then up to the capitalist to exploit the worker in that time to maximise their extraction of surplus value. So it's through the exploitation of a worker's labour power that the capitalist extracts this profit. If, for example, I'm employed to make mugs for eight hours a day, I might have made enough mugs for the capitalist through the sale of those commodities to pay back my wage in three hours but I've still got five more hours to go to work and so all of the time that I labour for after that generates surplus labour and everything produced in that time and then exchange generates surplus value. Value that's been added to the commodity through my labouring on them that's being expropriated by the capitalist. So the more mugs I make, e.g. the more productive I am, the more profit that the capitalist can make. Now there are numerous ways in which the capitalist can extract more surplus value out of a worker and it's in their interest to directly fight to do this. So they can extend the length of the working day, they can cut breaks, they can have the worker do additional tasks on paid overtime, all things that I think will all be very familiar with in our own workplaces in recent years. The other thing that capitalists can do though is that they can invest in machinery and technology to reduce the amount of time it takes the worker to produce a commodity and by doing that, that increases the number of commodities produced by the worker in their given contracted hours. Now capitalist aren't ruthlessly exploiting workers for the fun of it though, they must do this in order to remain competitive, it's not optional. So if one capitalist mug maker invests in a machine and another doesn't, then the first capitalist can sell them mugs far more cheaply because more are being produced, let's say by meeting the same given amount of time. This allows them to undercut the mug competition allowing that particular capitalist to take a larger share of the market and this is what lowers the socially necessary labour time that goes into the production of a product and resulting prices in the market. Now the other mug producers, they must invest similarly or they need to find alternative ways to exploit their workers to extract more surplus value or they would have their profits cut and their ability to invest decreased through that and then the capital that they're going to generate diminishes until they can no longer compete. So it's also this competition to increase surplus value that forces this race to the bottom of workers' rights and conditions. Now the logic of surplus value extracting as much as possible by the capitalist and forced by this competition demands therefore that the workers work longer for less money in order to expand the surplus value of criming to the bosses at the expense of the share going to labour in the form of those wages. We see a great example of this in Amazon. Amazon is obviously the world's most valuable company and yet it has workers on food stamps and that's not an accident, it's the secret of their success and it is essential in the capitalism. Amazon pays its workers the lowest possible wage meaning they're extracting more surplus value from those workers and accumulating the profits extracted from the surplus labour. Boohoo is another good example of this. They use the cheapest possible materials and they pay the lowest salaries and that means that they can extract the largest amount of surplus value from their production, undercut the competition by selling their clothes more cheaply, take a larger share of the market, out-compete their competition and they've done this by exploiting their workers the most. So essentially what we're showing here is that surplus value is the unpaid labour of the working class and that is extracted by squeezing as much productivity out of the workers during their employment as possible. This maximises the use of their labour power and then the products are sold for as much as they possibly can be and this is how profit is made. This is how capitalism works. Now, capitalists and their apologists will justify this extraction of surplus value from the workers by saying that it's acceptable because factory owners and capitalists are taking risks, it's compensation for them providing the means of production and jobs and the means of living towards us as a working class where it's payment for overseeing this process of production and this is the way that we see capitalists justifying those vast six-figure salaries that I talked about of the CEOs and the amount that the owners are keeping in profits from just having ownership of the means of production. But private ownership is not the cause of prosperity for the working class, it's the absolute antithesis of that and through increasingly exploiting the working class there's now more surplus value in society than there has been before but this can't be put to the use of the workers because it's appropriated it in the private hands of the capitalists. So what they're really doing is presenting the issue upside down. They say we need them to produce jobs but the reality is that they need us to produce value. Labour power is the thing that adds value to the object, the commodities that they're buying. The capitalists themselves don't produce any value, they just tap into the unpaid labour of the working class. Workers are essential to them, not the other way round. The capitalist class are essentially just parasites sucking value from the working class and adding nothing to society. It's actually capitalists that are not essential. In fact, their existence is in direct opposition to us having this essential work carried out and workers who do that essential work being paid fairly and with reasonable working conditions to go inside it. Now, I want to return to NHS at this point because this is something very starkly raised in our society right now. We have a great need for healthcare and it's probably the most highly prized institution. These jobs are the most highly prized in the UK. The NHS is a massive source of pride in the working class and it's actually the biggest single employer in the country. Yet it's failing. The needs of the population here are at odds with the needs of capitalism. Now, of course, healthcare and the workers that are involved in that, they do assist the capitalist in a number of ways. They keep the workforce healthy and able to continue doing the rest of their jobs. But ultimately these NHS workers and care workers don't contribute to the production of profit but therefore a drain on surplus value that could otherwise have been invested to generate more capital. So a nurse unless employed in the private sector cannot be exploited in the same way as a shop worker, for example. Yes, they can still have their working conditions worsened. The hours can be lengthened and the wages cut. Their labour power can still be exploited but the labour is not productive. It doesn't contribute to the production in exchange of commodities. So a health workers wage is paid by the state, meaning that their wage comes from a cut of surplus value that's already been extracted from the workers and collected through the taxes that the state collects. So these types of workers are facing worsening conditions. They're overstretched and this is because budgets are being cut. They're under-prepared for the pandemic and the level of doctors is lower than it should be so that they're working longer hours. There simply aren't enough of them basically. And the NHS, which is so important to us as ordinary people, is only good from the perspective of capitalism if it can be used to produce a profit. And that's why we've seen cuts to NHS spending, a disintegration of the health service that we had and then the use of that to push for its change or its modernisation, basically to push for more privatisation to solve this problem that underfunding and austerity has caused which has been essential under capitalism. I think it's clear, very clear to all of us that we need a free NHS for all workers and we need for the NHS to have decent working conditions. We need workers to have enough rest and to be paid fairly. But again, this can't happen under capitalism. There's another contradiction and again it just points to that contradiction between our needs and the needs of capitalism. So a really great example for this is when we look at employment in the NHS. So there's currently a shortage of nurses to the tune of 44,000. And as I've said, many are leaving due to the poor work-life balance or ill health. That's consequential to the job itself. We need more of these essential workers but the government have previously removed the bursary to help people trained to get into those essential jobs. So here we have a huge gap, a massive need that needs filling. 4.1% of the population are unemployed and that looks likely to set, I think it will jump between 9.7 and 13.2% and estimates are saying currently by 2021. So we've got jobs that need filling and workers that need to have work to do. And yet they're not able to fill those jobs because they can't afford the £90,000 fees to train into this job. And even when they can afford those fees, they're not staying in that role because the working conditions are so difficult. The government have removed this bursary and they're not going to pay for workers to be trained as nurses because it is not a profitable job in the public sector. But also the money doesn't exist in the state's hands to pay for this when it's privately operated. This is compounded by the necessity of austerity which has led to these years of underfunding in the NHS. And basically manufacturing this problem long before the pandemic actually hit. And we can see this in the fact that UK health spending has been at historically low levels in recent years and we have the lowest number of intensive care beds in the whole of Europe. And what this has meant is very stark as a consequence of a lack of preparation for the pandemic and limited spending. Over 620 healthcare workers have died as a direct consequence of inadequate PPE. These are completely preventable deaths of so-called essential or key workers. Capitalism has killed those workers. And this comes, I think, really, we can go quite far back to look at the roots of this. And ever since that to introduce these market forces into the NHS in the 1980s, key services have been increasingly handed over to private contractors. The claim is that this reduces government's funding. Now, the government is using the pandemic as a cover to rush through greater privatisation through the back door, placing public health in the hands of profiteering private sector patrons, essentially. Ministers have used special powers that have been granted to deal with the virus to bypass normal tendering processes, awarding NHS contracts to a whole host of private firms, to the tune of a billion pounds. And everything now, not literally everything, but a huge majority of things from lab testing facilities to the nightingale hospitals that have been created to even the supply of PPA has been outsourced to these private companies. And we've seen the results of that outsourcing and this profit making. Nightingale hospitals have been closed and some didn't even admit a single patient, despite the fact that we have tens of thousands of people dying in care homes. And I think what's clear through this blunder, which isn't really a blunder, is by design, is that the government is more interested in awarding these contracts to their wealthy donors, allowing them to make huge profits from the healthcare crisis than they are interested in protecting the general public and ensuring that the virus is properly contained. Private companies are not prepared to efficiently carry out the tasks required to contain this virus that only interested in their own profits. Now, we need to reverse all of this privatisation that outsourcing in the NHS, in local councils, and in our public services more widely. Essential services to deal with the pandemic should be brought under private ownership and they should be democratically managed by the working class in the interest of the public good, not profit making. Here, though, we can see clearly how the profit motive is in the way of the needs of society. But there's no way around this within capitalism. The needs of the people are subjugated to the needs of capital. We need free healthcare in normal times and we need it now more than ever, and we need healthcare workers who are paid and treated fairly. But this is impossible to happen to the current system. And this is why we're facing this vile dichotomy in the news of saving the economy or saving lives. But within the logic of capitalism, that has to be the choice that's put towards us on the table. If we say that these workers are essential, as they so evidently are, and if we say that the current system cannot give us what is essential, then the current system isn't fit for purpose. And if the system can't afford us the things that we need, then the answer is really quite simple.  We need to do away with private ownership and production for profit. So we come back around to the question of what is essential, which we should frame around the perspective of essential to who. What is essential, e.g. productive for the capitalist is work that produces communities that through exchange can generate huge profits. What's unproductive is using money that could have been used on capital on the wages of workers and nurses and teachers, for example. So that which produces profit, that which produces surplus value is productive and essential, whereas anything else, however essential for human life, is unproductive. Now, surplus value is not just created on the factory floor, like the carrots and the mugs that I was talking about, under capitalism to create a need and to circulate the vast amount of commodities that are produced. There are plethora of jobs that are needed from property lawyers to actuaries to all the auxiliary jobs that serve those people in their roles, including sandwich shops and the city centres. That these roles seem completely non-essential towards an unproductive compared to the jobs that I started talking about, the key workers. But within the logic of capitalism, they are actually essential. A worker doesn't need to produce a product to be productive and generate surplus value for the capitalists, as well as the jobs that I've talked about. There are jobs such as advertisement, marketing, sales, managerial roles.  Now, any good or service that satisfies a need can be solved. Shifting money to marketing is done in order to gain a greater share of the market and it doesn't help the population, but it is serving a need.  So in 2019, they spent US$447.3 million on advertising globally and that was out of total expenditure of $2.23 billion. That's 20% of McDonald's total expenditure being spent on advertisement alone. Red Bulls is similar, but even more star, they spent 40% of their total expenditure on advertising and what that equates to, really, is more money being spent on marketing than on the development of their products. And this clearly evidences the importance of advertising and all those associated jobs. It's more important than developing the product itself. Now, it seems to us that this is utterly wasteful. You think what could have been, that money could have been spent on if it were up to us to choose how to spend it. It's estimated that £220 million was spent on the Nightingale hospitals. Well, with McDonald's spending on advertisement alone, we can almost double that amount. Think of the labour power that's being used up by workers employed by McDonald's to advertise. Their labour instead could be put to use as something essential to our society, filling the 100,000 unfilled posts in the NHS for a start. Well, people do feel that these jobs are true. You know, if you're in these jobs, you do feel like you're not contributing to society in a meaningful way. They really don't feel that they're essential to normal life or to productive to normal life. And that is really in a way true because those jobs are just contributing to the growth of capitalism. And what that really points to is the problem with the capitalist system again. The reality is that doing these jobs is actually very important to capitalism. They're contributing to private profit. These jobs are not bullshit from the point of view of capitalism because they contribute to the capitalist competing to take a bigger share of the market and increasing their profits. Here's another contradiction. People are employed, not doing very much, not contributing to the meaningful way to society, pushing paper, as Graeba would say, but on the other hand they're providing an invaluable service to the production of profit. So clearly capitalism is in the way of us having fulfilling jobs and contributing productively to society. And it puts us in this position that we're in now where CEOs earn so much more than nurses. Basically, things that seemingly don't make sense, such as this disparity in wages and working conditions of those who are most valuable to us, compared to the jobs that do not take society forward, make sense under capitalism because fundamentally the needs of the capitalist system are at odds with the needs of the population. Now, Graeba stated, according to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to work as they don't really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens. While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things. Through some strange alchymuno and can quite explain, the number of salary paper pushers ultimately seems to expand. But the truth is there isn't some mystical reason as to why capitalist employees so many workers in the service sector, as I've just explained, it is explainable and it is when we look at the way that production happens in a capitalist system. Now, another reason that we've seen an increase in these types of jobs is a consequence of the decrepidity of the capitalist system. In the present epoch, there's been a general shift in economic activity from industrial production to service industries and finance capital. This deindustrialisation came about after World War II and was epitomised by Thatcher on her short-sighted profit-seeking She was attempting to rebuild the position of British capitalism through services and banking. That deindustrialisation of Britain over the last 30 to 40 years has weakened British capitalism. We're now faced with the problem of limited markets due to this internal contradiction of capitalism, surplus value and overproduction, compounded by the 2008 crisis. The essence of capitalist production means that workers are always getting less. They can never buy back the full amount of the commodities they produce because the capitalist is expropriating the rest. This whole process is exacerbated by monopoly. Now, monopoly is inevitable and should have picked easier. It's an inevitability under capitalism. As small companies compete, you naturally get market leaders. As these companies get larger, they become more efficient at producing their goods and services. They invest in mass production techniques in order to produce goods more cheaply than their competitors. They buy raw materials at cheaper prices because they buy in bulk. And they also copyright and patent their work, which prevents rivals from using it. So the bigger you get, the easier it is to make money and small companies cannot compete with this. Consumers therefore are benefiting less today from competition between capitalists than they ever have before.  These jobs are actually more valuable to capitalism than NHS jobs and the jobs of essential workers. So resources are poured into advertisement, having no value towards ordinary people that could instead be being put to use to improve health care, education, investing in the green energy, just as some examples. So again, we're seeing the capitalist system at odds with the needs of society.  With increased automation, Graver said that we should have seen a reduction in the working day of sharing out of the workload. We very evidently have not. And the reality is that in coming years, we'll see the automation of the paper pushers, too, with predictions suggesting that 30% of all jobs will be automated by 2030, including insurance and customer service roles. But reducing the amount or the number of hours work by workers is impossible in the capitalist system. With increased automation in the system, workers lose their jobs and there's cuts into effective demand, which cuts into the market and further destabilises itself. Under capitalism, we have this contradiction that with the ability to reduce the working day, but at the same time possible for capitalists to continue functioning effectively when that does. When workers are replaced by machines, it puts this downward pressure on wages and it forces those in work to work harder for fear of losing their jobs. And then the harder they work, the more the others need to be laid off. And it's the pressure of the reserve army of labour that puts this downward pressure on wages. And as if this wasn't nonsensical enough, there's the added contradiction that the automation of menial tasks is also stalling. Currently, it's not worth it for the capitalist to invest in constant capital, this machinery and technology, when they can't sell the products in the market. Instead, they're crushing the workers and exploiting them all. So automation hasn't led to a decrease working hours. Capitalists are not investing because there's no guaranteed return. And instead, they're exploiting labour. So even when they automate, it leads to rising unemployment, fewer workers working longer and more people in poverty. Automation should be benefiting ordinary people, but under capitalism it's having the reverse effects. Capitalists are basically competing constantly to lower the cost of their production in order to extract more profit. So the reason we're seeing these pushes to increase productivity, the workforce, when they should be having their hours cut is because it's not profitable for capitalists. Yes, it's cheaper and easier to maintain machines at normal times, but with soaring unemployment and a downward pressure on wages, some jobs are not being automated because labour is cheaper. So instead of making life better, automation is actually making life worse. And we're seeing rising unemployment due to automation on the one hand and fewer jobs being created because as more jobs are automated, fewer workers have work and demand decreases because machines can't buy back commodities. So we've got this situation where more products are being created, but no more wealth is going to the working class. It's increasing profits, but living standards aren't going up. So as Engels correctly points out in socialism, utopian and scientific, reason has become but unreason. We have the ability to make life so much better for workers, and yet that's not happening. It's not being done because profits are locked in private hands. And what I think is being traced through this is the fact that it's not just immobile what's happening is completely illogical. Thus, we have workers who are forced to be more productive now than they have at any point in history. Is any of that benefiting the working class? No.  And at the same time we're seeing rising inequality. There's a vast amount of wealth that exists in society and a huge amount of labour being employed by workers to produce that benefits from that are inaccessible to the majority because of the capitalist system itself. And really these jobs are essential to capitalism. They're just not essential to life. And in the current system again we come back to this idea that social needs are subjugated to those needs of the capital. So what we can conclude from this then is that we can only have the really essential jobs being done and shared amongst the population for the advancement of living conditions when the anarchy of capitalist production for profit is replaced by a planned economy. Now what's essential here is the removal of the drive for profit specifically which conditions everything in our society. Even the capitalists are tied into this drive compete for higher profits and exploit workers as much as possible or be outcompeted. And a further consequence of this and therefore another way in which capitalism is in actual fact killing those is the impact that this type of production has on the planet, something that we'll be able to discuss in one of the sessions later today. But briefly, the drive for profit is going to destroy the planet. The planet from which profits are actually made which is an utter contradiction from the point of capitalism as a whole because it'll destroy the capacity for future profit making. But from the point of view of an individual capitalist it is the right thing to do and it's the only thing to do in order to stay in business. So the creation of needs to buy products to create profit is poisoning the planet destroying things with huge use value to us such as the air and the trees. And again, clearly we conclude that the economic system that we live under is in contradiction with the basic needs of humanity for the majority. There's this fundamental contradiction then between social production and private appropriation. The division of labour means that we produce what we need as a society socially. I teach someone else's farms, someone else produces the products, someone else distributes those products and none of this can happen individually. But the proceeds of the sales of those products are privately appropriated through the extraction of surplus value as profit which then sits in the individual capitalist hands and cannot be utilised for the good of the majority. And the jobs that are most essential that don't produce a surplus that can be extracted such as nursing are not being invested in. Exchange value comes into conflict with use value and that's why we see the most essential roles with the greatest use to us but the least used to profit making so poorly treated and underpaid and those who generate the biggest exchange value so highly prized. So what's the solution? Well, for Marxist, the solution to this contradiction is clear. We need a revolution in production, in ownership, control and organisation, a revolution in how societies run. We need to abolish the laws and illogic of the capitalist system and we need to replace that with a set of economic laws. Ones that are based on common ownership, a rational plan of production and democratic control and management and a planned economy would change the motive to produce from profit to need. But if we want to have control over what money is spent in our economy and ensure that the productivity work is put to use advancing society and our living standards and to reducing the working day, we have to have this planned economy and to control and plan, we have to have collective ownership of everything that's produced. Through this we'd be able to produce and plan in the interests of the need and the needs of the money rather than the profits of a few individual capitalist tonnes. The first step to this will be expropriating the commanding height of the economy. That's the land, the banks, the utilities, the infrastructure, the largest companies, all to be placed under the democratic control of the working class as part of the planned economy. Now we can see a glimpse of what's possible with the USSR which wasn't successful in bringing about socialism, but what it did do was create a planned economy and the results of this can be seen in the transformation of Russia between 1913 and 63 following the 1917 revolution. In that period, the country went from being more economically backward than Bangladesh is today to being the second most powerful nation on earth. Industrial output rose 52 times in comparison to the USA which rose six times and two for Britain. Productivity of labour raised by 1,310% which again contrasts to 332% in the USA and 73% in Britain. If this was achieved in 20th century Russia which was a backward, almost feudal country at the time which has also been devastated by two world wars and a civil war and as well as suffering under the Stalinist bureaucracy, imagine what a democratically planned economy in Britain and the rest of the economically advanced world in the 21st century could actually achieve. The result of such planning combined with the distribution of labour between everyone capable of work instead of what we see today where you've got some people doing two or three jobs and some people completely unemployed would mean a reduction in the length of the working day with no loss of pay becoming possible. As I discussed earlier with regard to automation this is something that cannot be achieved in capitalism. Therefore we have to demand full employment and decent living standards for all. A planned economy would also win this bogus choice between saving the economy or saving lives that's posed right now. It's disgusting that people will face death by the virus or potentially death by unemployment in impoverished conditions where so much wealth is existing in society right now.  Right now I think we can all agree that shielding is the most important thing for vulnerable workers. Instead of dicing with death in workplaces that they don't need to be in creating adverts for an already infamous global brand and pushing paper around an office so that they're at liberty to spend their wages in their lunch breaks on overpriced sandwiches in order to keep the economy going. We should be shielding workers insisting that they stay at home and stay safe. We should provide the NHS with more than it needs to give health workers and care workers rest and PPE and give them a civilised existence. But instead the government are actually discussing if people who are at severe risk should be going into the office so that they can buy sandwiches or not. The working class needs health care and their health care needs to be prioritised. But we aren't getting that under capitalism. If workers have remained off workers happened during the lockdown only individual private profits would have suffered. Simply capitalists have to have workers in work because they have to continue turning their profit and attempting to keep their system limping on. Profits in the system are more important in people's lives. And this contradiction shouldn't exist. Capitalist profits are the only thing that risking keeping us off work. But it doesn't need to be like that. It's only the capitalist system and capitalist's incessant drive for profit that makes it so. Socialism on the other hand means the end of a society in which humans are being oppressed and exploited by all the human beings for profit and an end to their labour being squandered. And an end to the fruits of our labour being privately appropriated by a tiny number of private hands. It means an end to private property on a grand scale and an end to private profit and the anarchy of the free market that it brings about. But a rational planned economy can only be achieved by the working class taking into control the banks and the commanding heights of the economy and democratically planning the economy. The working class have to have direct involvement in this in deciding its direction and in prioritising what is essential. The bottom line is that capitalism is literally killing us. We need health workers, we need care workers and social workers and teachers and all of the other jobs that are genuinely essential to living and that we're not getting because they're not profitable. There's a clear need in society that the system that we live under cannot provide for us. And the answer therefore is simple. We have to smash the capitalist system and create a socialist system with a planned economy that produces for need rather than anarchically for profit. It's all well and good to talk about this though, isn't it?  But to ensure that we are only carrying out working society that's actually useful that's essential or fulfilling. We need a revolution in order to take power to abolish this private property and exploitation and to put the productivity of workers and the natural resources of the planet to benefit everyone, including the planet itself. So what that leads us to conclude is that in order for workers to live, this current system has to die and it's not going to wither away on its own. Capitalism will limp and claw and ride on its way continuing until it is overthrown and that puts the task on us comrades. It's essential. We have to fight to overthrow capitalism.


Hello? Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so good morning. So today I give a different kind of lecture. Yesterday was more about foundations and general principles, and today is more about recent results. And so I will actually show you some results from recent experiments about sub-seasonal variability and interconnections that we have performed at ECMWF, and together with this colleague of mine, Sarah Jane Locke, is Robert Reddick, and Sennemann Reddick guitar. And some of them are experiments really on the sub-seasonal timescale, monthly, and some more predictions. And some of them are long runs, multi-decadal runs, with both just our atmospheric system, by our service team, or with our coupled system. And these are experiments that we have run for a new funded project called Primavera, coordinated by the UKMET Office and University of Reading. And it involves making long simulations for the historical period and the future up to 2050. ECMWF will only do the historical part. So, let's start from the sub-seasonal experiment where you've already seen a diagram like this many times. But, in fact, I will come back to show you this particular version of the Wheeler-Hendron phase diagram because it just describes one case of very strong Madeleine-Judian oscillation that occurred during the winter of 2007-2008. So, you see here in a very, very large amplitude of the EMJ cycle, especially in this part of the diagram, phase two and three, where the convection is located over the Indian Ocean. And so, basically, these experiments were considered with one particular aspect. And that is, you know, we always say, well, it's been said a number of times during the school, we have this signal that propagates into the extra tropics with a time scale of, say, 10 days. Most people would say the largest connection of Atlantic oscillation occurs 10 days after phase three. However, the EMJ-O is a propagating phenomenon. And therefore, because of that, when you do lag correlation, there's always some sort of ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, you could say, well, let's see what happens 15 days after phase two when the convection is in western Indian Ocean. And if you do that, and you make a composite of all the geopotential height anomalies at 500 kPa, 15 days after phase two, then you get a map like this with this wave number two that we have already seen and discussed yesterday. And you see a positive North Atlantic oscillation signal. Now, if you do the composite 10 days after phase three, you get a similar wave number two, perhaps this center might be a bit less defined, but now the southern part of the North Atlantic oscillation is stronger. So actually, you can put them together, and then you get a sort of smoother interconnection pattern, which, however, is not very different from any of the two. So the question is, where is the signal actually starting from, and how long does it take? Or maybe this is what we could say is that what we see in the North Atlantic is actually a combination of signals that come from different parts of the Indian Ocean but have different propagation time, and then they end up reinforcing each other. So these were the questions that we are trying to address. And of course, they have been addressed in the past. And one simple way to do that, and that is similar to what you are doing with speedy, when you fix the location of the forcing, is in fact to impose a diabetic heating in one part of the tropics in a general circulation model of the atmosphere and then see what is the response and how long it takes for the response to be established. And one paper which is often quoted on this is the one from Hylene Giverboune and a collaborator there published in 2010 where they actually took a dry primitive equation model with prescribed heating, and they added on top of the climatological heating some anomalous heating that somehow was mimicking the structure of the first two EOS of Euler variability. And they didn't get a lot of response from the first pattern, the monopole over the Maritime continent, but they got a pretty strong response to dipole here and the maps at the bottom are in fact the response in geopotential height at 500 after six to ten days after the start of the forcing and then you see that there you... Yeah, I hope you see the coastlines here in North America so they get some strong response in the Pacific, let's say from the six to ten and then after another five days, so 11 to 15, then they also get this response in the Atlantic that projects on to the North Atlantic oscillation. Contrary to that, there are some causes and reasons and I think it also seems that we get a huge response in the Pacific which I think is kind of intriguingly of the expected, but there is another one if you scale it so it's just one... Yeah, no, in fact, I'm not saying that this is... I'm not saying that this is a... a perfect explanation of what's happening, but it's a paper which is often quoted and it has a relatively simple methodology and also what they have done and it's quite nice, they've actually made a number of experiments again with the dipole structure but moving the longitude of the centers and then they look whether the signal actually basically projected on this pattern in a positive way or a negative way so in that particular experiment the center of the heating is about 90 degrees so basically this graph tells you that wherever you put the center of the heating west of 100 degrees longitude you will get a projection with this sign when you move it to the east a design of the response will change and although as Fred pointed out the details of this response maybe are slightly different from reality the general features have been reproduced by many others One issue with this kind of technique is that in the MJO case the heating is not fixed it's actually propagating and so other studies have actually imposed the propagating heating and it's a very nice study by David and collaborators published recently in 2015 that a forcing that was actually diagnosed from actual data was imposed as a moving forcing and they studied the exotropical response so somehow when you are using speedy with this propagating forcing you are somehow doing something along this line now I showed you this graph before somehow these teleconnections are very similar to the ones that we also found on the seasonal time scale so if you actually look at the connection from a dipole in convection between the western Indian Ocean and the maritime continents then again you see this wave number two pattern with this low extension here north of the Caspian Sea so again this is a confirmation that if you have a heating dipole in that region that will produce this pattern one difference between this pattern and the previous one if you notice is the sign of the signal in the Pacific and that in fact that depends very much on the location because if you move this dipole too far to the east then the negative part will actually go into the central Pacific and then you will get a different kind of response a bit like the linear response that will give you a high over the Pacific so the sign of the Pacific response may also depend crucially on where the dipole is actually located I see that with the largest signal I see in the central Pacific so why do you claim that the signal is coming from the Indian Ocean? There's another figure in the paper where I removed the ENSO signal if you do it on the seasonal time scale you would... I don't have it here because I didn't want to put too many slides but if you autogonalize this signal so you can take an index like this you take the Nino 3.4 SSD and you autogonalize the signal so you remove the component then this blob goes away and my assumption is that you remove the from the Pacific you get a reduced amplitude and in the Pacific you get a reduced amplitude however it doesn't go away if you locate the convection enough to the west it still gives you a negative signal over the Pacific but yeah, the strength of this is actually related to this part as well it's not only... no, these are... this is an era interim geopotential height and GPCP these are observations so I wanted to try and use this simple approach also to look at different timescales effectively you know the sub-seasonal that we are concerned today with and the decadal timescale now for the decadal timescale I don't have time to talk about it here but this long link will give you access to a similar presentation I gave at the ECNWR seminar in September that also covers the decadal part so... we try to make experiments similar to the one of Haydn or the one you are doing but with a slightly different approach and the reason is that we didn't want to explicitly impose one particular structure so as we discussed then the response may depend exactly on what latitude and maybe the vertical structure of the heating whether you move it or you keep it fixed so what we did is that we choose one case of strong MJO and this is the one I showed you before so this one in winter 2007 and actually so we started ensemble experiments with the ECNWR ensemble prediction system started on the 10th of December so we are in this point in the MJO cycle and in the ECNWR ensemble we have what is called a stochastic physics that's a sort of abbreviated term basically so we put stochastic perturbation to the tendencies that are produced by the physical parameterizations this scheme is referred to as SPPT which stands for stochastic parameterization of physical tendencies and what it does is that it takes the integrated the total results of all the parameterizations and then it just multiplies these tendencies by a number which is one plus a small random number now in the operational ensemble this approach is applied all over the globe and in addition we put initial perturbations in the ensemble in this particular experiment we didn't put any perturbation in the initial condition but we did basically a control experiment where the stochastic physics is applied over the globe as in the operational ensemble so this will produce some spread of course smaller at the beginning but then we will go over the whole globe and then we looked at two particular regions and the first one is exactly the one that we have discussed before and the second one and you will understand why is this region covering South America and the tropical Atlantic so basically what we want to see is whether if we just originate some spread in the ensemble in this region or in this region would that be enough to modify substantially the variability in the North Atlantic and so somehow the reason why we have chosen a strong MGO case is that this forcing is stochastic so it doesn't have a preferred structure however so what we hope is that since this was a case when the convection was organizing itself this stochastic perturbation would somehow project on the existing MGO without making either stronger or weaker and so this is what happened so this is what happens in the experiment where you have this stochastic perturbation supplied everywhere so we computed an index of the North Atlantic oscillation just the difference between geopotential height in the region of Iceland and Lisbon and if you now do a regression against this index among the 51 members of the ensemble so in this case the variability is just it's not a variability in time it's a variability among the 51 members of the ensemble each of them has a different perturbation then you can see that there's quite a strong variability here in the North Atlantic you cannot see the maximum but it goes over 120 meters over Iceland so very strong in your variability and then I looked at precipitation along the equator so average between 10 North and 10 South so this map is actually an average for days 29 to 23 so basically it's a five day mean center on day 21 and then I looked at five day means of precipitation backwards and this red box just tells you that this stochastic physics is applied over the whole range of latitudes and so basically you look backwards at what is actually happened and if you look at here at the beginning of the experiment then you can see an increase in rainfall west of 90 degrees east and a decrease in rainfall to the east so somehow it tells you that you can actually trace some signal propagating to the east but you also see some signal here over the South America and North Atlantic region so this picture is a bit mixed but basically tells you that so you have some signal at the beginning of the experiment into region here the Indian Ocean and West Pacific and here the Atlantic somehow the signal propagates into the extra tropics and then you get this annual however because the perturbations are applied everywhere you cannot be absolutely sure that the spread in DNA was only caused by this perturbation however then we can look at what happened when we only put the perturbation in the Indian Ocean and the maritime continent and then somehow of course you do the same of molar diagram and so this is the area where the perturbations are put so you see that at the beginning the rainfall anomaly is only present in this area as you would expect again very large spread in the North Atlantic oscillation around the A20 and here now you can clearly you see more clearly the signal in precipitation propagating from the Western Indian Ocean to the east you see this green line moving from the beginning of the experiments up to the 20 so in this case we know that the source of the spread is only in that region there's no other source of spread in this ensemble apart from the changes in convection which are triggered by the stochastic physics now we can say how long does it take for this spread to be equivalent to the spread we have when we put perturbations everywhere so for example if you now compute the spread in the NaO index this is how the spread increases with time when we put perturbations everywhere of course you have perturbations already in the extra tropics so the NaO spread will go quite fast and after about 10 days it will almost reach its maximum value if you put just the perturbations in the tropics in the Indian Ocean and in Indonesia of course in the beginning there's hardly any spread in the NaO because the signal didn't have time to propagate but after you see after about 20 days the spread in the NaO is basically the same so this tells you that you put a perturbation in this case impose any structure we just perturb stochastically and let the model organize itself and basically after after 20 days you have a spread in the NaO as large as in the experiment where we had perturbations everywhere so this somehow is an indication that this is really a crucial region for the variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation but of course this is mainly showing up in the sub-seasonal range because of course in the first 10 days or so the signal is still somehow traveling we also put perturbations in the Eastern Pacific the problem of this experiment is that because it's random eventually it doesn't matter where you put perturbations if you wait long enough the spread of the NaO will be yes so it's just the middle of the time scale well we put perturbations in the Atlantic that's the second region and that is what you get so even after 20 days you don't get the same spread yeah you get some spread but if you actually look at the amplitude of what happens if we just put the perturbations here then you get something that again projects on the NaO but it's probably only 60% of what you get so yeah it's still that if you wait long enough everything will reach the same spread but here you have to go up to the 30 to have the same spread so if you go at the 20 which is around here in the other case the blue line was overlapping with the green one here we are about so of course in the long run any perturbation will spread to the whole globe but somehow this shows that in fact the Indian Ocean and West Pacific is a particularly effective source of perturbations for the North Atlantic oscillation now of course this is not a general methodology probably will not work in all the cases I think it worked because this was a case of strong MJO so this stochastic forcing actually was amplified by the strong organized convection and we'll have to repeat we want to repeat this experiment in other for other initial states to see what happens now and another way of seeing this is to instead start from the precipitation and to do the covariance with some leg that's the traditional approach for example if you do it using GPCP and Eri-interim in fact you put a dipole exactly when same region as we use for the seasonal forecast and after two weeks you'll see again number two in the northern extra tropics now if you do it with the experiment in fact with these perturbations only in the Indian Ocean then of course if you do the covariance across the ensemble member and like zero you hardly see anything because the signal has not yet reached the extra tropics then you start seeing something after one week again wave number two and this wave number two then becomes fully developed after two weeks now let me move to the second part so this is basically how we can trigger an AO variability in our sub-seasonal forecast now when you do sub-seasonal forecast of course we start initial conditions so the model still basically starts from the observed attractor but of course model have biases and they asymptote to their own climate and so we decided to take part into this EU funded project Primavera which is basically the goal is to diagnose the behavior of high resolution couple models and do basically help improvement in different aspects of this model this is a project that involves all the major modeling groups in Europe and will contribute to the so-called high res MIP part of CMIP6 so high res MIP is basically it's consistent set of simulations for the period 1950-2050 so this will be 100 year runs and you will have a control experiment with 1950 forcing you will have couple experiment and for the historical part you will have a MIP experiment now ECMWF is only doing the historical part so we are not doing the extension so our experiments are performed up to from 1950-2014 and since the purpose of the project is to explore the impact of resolution every institution runs these simulations with two resolutions in this case basically we are running with two versions of our couple model one with a sort of grid point resolution of 50 kilometers and one with a grid point resolution of 25 kilometers in one case the ocean model has a one degree resolution in the other case it's a quarter resolution the vertical resolution is identical 91 levels for the atmosphere 75 levels in the ocean and we use the link to CIS model in both cases so the first thing this was a new kind of experiment for us basically running our model for very long time to see what is actually the asymptotic climate of the model so I think one of the first thing one to see when you run a couple system is whether it's able to maintain and so variability and this was a nice surprise for us that the model actually does so these are actually tiny series of the linear 3.4 SST anomalies on the left you see what you get in the AME of course in the AME you prescribe the SST so these are actually had high SST too so in practice these are the observations of SST and these are the time series for four ensemble members run with the coupled high resolution run and with our nice surprise the system is able to maintain and so amplitude you can see that the things look a bit different between different ensemble members for example in this one you have pretty large amplitude with quite regular period but if you look at the other experiments then the variation is more regular perhaps closer to the observation and there will be each group will contribute one ensemble member that is the requirement this will be put in this CMOR format that is common to all CMIP6 experiment in this particular case you will get this ensemble member for it probably is good because I think it's somewhat in the middle between the other ensemble members so that's a nice experiment and not only you can do the covariance of SST in the top or rainfall at the bottom with the Nino in this case will be the Nino 4 SST anomaly because we wanted also to look at precipitation that peaks in the Nino 4 and you are on the left the covariance is computed from ERA interim and GPCP in the center the covariance is computed by Amy and here on the right the covariance is computed from the couple model and if you compare this covariance with the observance these are pretty good one aspect I'm actually coming back is that if you look at the covariance between the rainfall here and the rainfall in the Indian Ocean you see a pretty small signal in the observation so this tells you that the rainfall here and the rainfall here they have a positive correlation but it's relatively weak it gets a bit stronger in the Amy run and it gets even stronger when the rainfall runs and I will show you what effect this has on the teleconnections so these are now the teleconnections from the western Indian Ocean and the Nino 4 region the precipitation in this region on the geopotential height at 500 and these are actually seasonal means in this case we first look at the seasonal means top left what you get from the observation number two we have seen the number of times why so this is from the western Indian Ocean and you see if you only do the western Indian Ocean then you get this low over the north Pacific but it's much reduced and farther to the north so the big signal that you saw in the previous version is also because I included in the index the sinking over the maritime continent but the part over the north Atlantic oscillation you can get it just if you consider the rainfall over the western Indian Ocean if you look at the covariance with the Nino 4 precipitation then you get the traditional Nino teleconnection big signal here over the central and east Pacific the signal over the Atlantic where you have a big low roughly in the middle actually you can say that maybe a slight negative projection onto the north Atlantic oscillation because you have a positive anomaly here over Iceland but if you look for example over Lisbon it's around the zero line so it's a very weak with negative correlation now let's look at what the model does well there's a wave number 2 pattern in geopotential height not as clear not as strong as in the observation especially the southern part is much weaker but overall you could say it's not too bad if you look at the Nino 1 that also looks pretty good in the Pacific but now you see that there's a shift to the north of this of this particular pattern so now you tend to get perhaps a slightly positive connection with the Nino we still argue that the relevant flow pattern in Europe is still very similar only that one projection one the Nino the other a little bit less the flow in the Atlantic and in Europe is more or less similar now if you now look at the couple system then perhaps the yeah this particular interconnection here in the Atlantic it perhaps gets more similar now the position of the low is in this case it's actually farther to the south so in this case the projection is more clearly negative so look what happens from the Indian Ocean you hardly have any signal and it's interesting to see how that depends on the relationship between these two regions so we've seen in the observations they are not very much correlated so I've plotted here for the four ensemble measures the correlation of the Western Indian Ocean rainfall with the Nino 3.4 red dot the observation gives you 0.17 so the red line should be at the same level as the red number but actually these are the and these are the couple runs you see all the points are much higher now the second thing that you can plot is the correlation these are the green values of the Western Indian Ocean with the NAO index and if you look at the amy the green line the green dots are a bit below the 0.34 values that you get from the observation but they are not very far apart consistent with the map but if you actually look at the couple runs well they are very low or even in one case even negative now interestingly let's look at what happens to the correlation between the Nino 3.4 SSD and the NAO index we have seen that in the reality it's almost zero in fact minus 0. 0.05 so yeah negative but really very very small and more or less the amy does it right but as we have seen from the maps the couple models tends to do actually a stronger negative correlation so because these two regions actually spend to send opposite or at least orthogonal signal in the North Atlantic what happens in our couple system is that actually first of all from the Nino region we get a slightly negative NAO and then not only but the Nino region strongly correlated now it's rather strongly correlated with the western Indian ocean so somehow you correlate two regions then send an opposite signal on the North Atlantic and this signal basically cancel each other so this is what happens on the seasonal time scale then I try to look at the at the sub-seasonal time scale and I did a similar analysis as I showed you before in this case I used OLR just for a technical issue in the observations you get basically the same result this is actually a slide the longer period than I showed you before I used the full Iain Terim period 1980 to 2013 again covariance with the dipole in OLR in this case convection means negative OLR anomaly the subsidence is associated with positive OLR anomaly over the maritime continent and after two weeks again you see this in this case it's more connected but ok you have lows over this region after the varying straight lows negative over Iceland, positive over the Mediterranean so clearly positive NAO signal now in the EMI plan well again you get the wave number two and this negative extension towards the Caspian sea if you do it from the couple you would hardly see anything however as I said sometimes this correlation may depend critically on the location of the dipole so what I did is that this is probably more phase two of the NAO what happens if I shift the dipole to the east to be closer to phase three and in fact if you do that it's not that you get a fantastic signal but at least you start getting some projection onto a positive NAO now you can ask yourself why does it happen well one reason is maybe on the seasonal time scale we have seen that this stronger control of the ENSO region but in this case the ENSO signal is actually removed so all the signals are orthogonalized to ENSO so there may be another reason for that and what we actually found out is that we wanted to see how the OLR signal was actually propagating in this experiment so again we start from an OLR signal roughly looking like a phase two of the NAO and we want to see what happens after two weeks so then you would expect this signal to propagate to the east so this is what happens if you do it with the era interim OLR so you start from a phase two and in fact after two weeks now the convection has moved into the west sorry so this is the dry area so the dry area has moved into the west pacific and the negative OLR anomaly which represents convection has also moved from the western Indian Ocean to the eastern Indian Ocean so maybe something like a phase three or a phase four no no no in this case now these are sorry these are now weekly means these are now weekly means sorry weekly means question yeah and so you compute this index from a certain week and you correlate this with the week the anomaly is one week after or two weeks after so so basically let's so this is what you get after two weeks if you do it from the reanalysis this is what you get if you look at the amic and if you look at the amic you see a signal which is as strong as the observation but you can hardly see any propagation the signal is almost standing so there's a bit of propagation but very low and that's probably the effect of the imposition of prescribed SSD and actually you don't allow the feedback with the ocean which are known to be contributing to the propagation of the mother and junior oscillation so basically the covariance map with the signal after one week sorry no at week zero and then after two weeks shows very little sign of propagation so the signal remains standing or it's weakly propagating and you can read this nice paper by Pian Kajarov and David where they actually show that actually this low episode are actually the ones that give the stronger teleconnections in the North Atlantic so somehow it seems that also our amic brands tend to keep the forcing in place for a longer time and this is probably again another factor that makes the teleconnection stronger they have the variance the problem is that we haven't yet we have to do actually the lag correlation to see what is the speed of propagation this would suggest that the speed is extremely low now if you look at the coupled model maybe you can say that now the phase is the right one but look how weak is the signal so this would actually suggest that in our coupled system there's not really a coherent propagation because although the variance if you do these things in other position you get the same result the variance is very comparable with the observation but the lag so when you do a correlation at zero lag but when you look at what happens after two weeks then you almost lose any signal so this seems to indicate that the propagation is much less coherent in the model than it is in the observation therefore while in the EMI PRAN you have this signal that remains in the same place for quite a long time in the couple run there's actually very little coherence in the propagation of this anomaly and so somehow the signal probably interfere with each other in a destructive way it's not bad in the sense that if you look at the location of the anomalies is roughly the right one if you look at the amplitude because this is actually a nonlinear scale you probably have something like half of the amplitude so for example here you have a contour of three in the same area you have a contour of six and again here this three this contour of three get this signal here you have a contour of one so in this case so it seems that overall the average propagation speed is probably the right one the fact that you lose so much signal to me it indicates that in the propagation it's not that everything dies out because if I move if I move these boxes the variance at like zero is still high but it's when you do this lag correlation then you lose a lot of signal so to me this indicates that on average the system has the right propagation but with a lot of spread so you don't have a coherent movement of this nice convection in the couple anyway these are really just very new results that have just been delivered and therefore hopefully you will see many more results from the primavera rounds in the future so we will have the other two years to analyze these ones so a brief summary so we have seen that we can actually basically reproduce the propagation of the signal from the western Indian Ocean and the maritime continents in sub-seasonal experiment just by basically adding stochastic perturbations to the physics and we have seen that in fact the Indian Ocean and the maritime continent are very effective in generating the spread propagation time is two weeks to ten days so it's very relevant in terms of time scale perhaps less so for the early-medium range we have looked now for the first time in very long runs with our couple system and in parallel with amyp system so there is a mixture of good news and bad news good news is that we have a realistic simulation of answer variability and the teleconnections but we have problems reproducing the teleconnections from the Indian Ocean on both the seasonal and the sub-seasonal time scales and there are two reasons one is a stronger dependence of Indian Ocean rainfall on the ENSO SSDs and the other one it seems that in our couple system the propagation speed is less well defined somehow than in observation in the observation you get a more coherent propagation in the couple model on average it's right but probably with a lot of variability and therefore the average signal gets weakened so so it seems that there are a lot of ingredients that you have to get right to get this the connection you need to have the convection in the right place you need to have the right amplitude of course but you also need to have the right propagation and the right connection with ENSO so it's not a very simple there's not a very simple recipe to get these teleconnections and a number of things have to get right and so when you see for example a fairing with our computer maps of teleconnections for many S2S models and you might be a bit depressing in saying that all the models get a weaker teleconnection than in the reality but as you have seen you have to get a lot of things right to get this teleconnection so still a lot of work to do on the modeling side so thank you


Hey what's up guys so if you don't know over the summer and really last year I basically burned myself out from overwork juggling this doctorate with running my business and I started having some unusual health issues that I'd never had before. One of them was some stuff going on my stomach just from the stress. Now over the summer I actually had lost almost 10 pounds and when I got on the scale in September back in Portland I was 159 pounds at six foot two which is the thinnest I'd ever been in a lot of years. Now around 170 I tend to look okay I tend to look muscular decent I'd say my ideal body weight is probably 180-185 but I was pretty nervous after losing that much weight and I certainly felt emotionally a bit stressed out because I worked so hard to gain that weight and it's taken me basically 10 years to gain that with digestive problems. Now once my stomach started going back to normal I started relaxing and chilling out I did three new habits to get up to 170 again so about 11 or 12 pounds in that 12-week period from about mid-September to basically mid-December. Hey what's up guys Alex Hine here author of the book Master of the Day so the very first thing that I do when anything goes haywire any habits not working could be relationship could be fitness could be finances is to track like what's the first thing the gurus tell you to do when you don't have enough money or you're overspending you track you keep a budget money in money out well you can do the same thing for calories or just overall foods what food's going in my body it's really that simple so the very first thing I did was I got my fitness pal I tracked what I was eating every day the kinds of foods and I very lightly tracked the number of calories and from there all I did was added three to 400 calories per day for me what tends to work best for my body is usually fat like peanut butter it's easy to get down it's fat so it doesn't leave you overly full and it's something that's pretty cheap to get in extra calories and so for me the key to first of all being honest with yourself is tracking because almost everyone I've talked to when it comes to fitness they overestimate basically how much they eat when it comes to weight loss or weight gain just like many people underestimate how much they're spending they think oh I only spent 300 this month but if you look at the facts on mint or on your bank of America statement it says you spent 800 this much and you put 500 on the credit card which now you're going to pay 20 30 40 50 100 a month on so for me the biggest thing first is to stop being in denial and to prove yourself the truth which is by tracking everything for 30 days related to that habit all right guys so the second thing is to eat out I know this is really unsexy there's nothing magical about this nothing really that special eat out all right really unsexy there's no magic to it the thing with eating out for me is that you realize just how many more calories you actually eat when you eat out if someone like me who has a hard time gaining weight can pretty consistently gain weight by eating out three four five times a week now when I eat out I'm not eating sushi right if I eat out I'm getting relatively heavy meals I'll get burgers or I'll get like a burger with salad or I'll get a lot of Mexican Spanish food is some of my favorites I tend to eat relatively heavy when I eat out but if you think about that for people that are trying to lose weight it's really difficult to count how much your how many calories you're getting when you eat out and that's kind of the trick right if you want to gain weight eat out more regularly because even if it's relatively healthy like salmon and rice you're still going to be getting in a ton of calories you wouldn't otherwise just because the amount of fat like in the form of butter or oils there's a lot more when you're going out to restaurants because they want the food to taste good so there's a lot of preparation a lot of processing that goes that goes into making food and there's both healthy processing unhealthy processing but the overall process of processing which includes dicing things up adding fat adding creams and sauces it just increases the calories a lot so the second thing I did was I actually started going out to I had like one business lunch or kind of like a networking dinner every every I guess four of them per week so I would go out four times per week we would pick a new restaurant especially being in Portland it's like foodie culture and it's nice to kind of see everything I would go out chat with people and just by doing that over the course of the last 10 to 12 weeks that's probably added five or six pounds by itself you know and again for me you know it's really easy for me not to overeat when it's my own food that I'm making so if you're if you're obviously someone who's trying to lose weight kind of shows the importance of not eating out so much the third thing is carbs now I know it's pretty trendy in the fitness industry to say that carbs are not why people are fat but what I found just straight up is that it is so easy for me to overeat when I'm eating a lot of carbs so for example if you take a meal and you say I want to have two people here one's going to gain weight one's going to lose weight one person has to eat a huge steak that's prepared in a healthy way with vegetables the other person has to have maybe like a four-hour steak with a huge plate of mashed potatoes with gravy who do you think is going to gain the weight like the person with a huge plate of mashed potatoes and in my opinion my experience it's all about satiety so how full you feel all I know is for me someone who does not have a big appetite by nature I easily will overeat on carbs versus protein or vegetables that's just the nature of the game and so if I want to actually encourage myself to gain the weight I would have you know with breakfast I usually have two eggs on toast I would have two eggs and two or three pieces of toast for lunch I usually have like chicken rice and vegetables I would have a double portion of rice and then for dinner I often have more of what's for lunch or these days I've been going out a little bit more but the very fact that for me someone with not a lot of appetite and who tends to get bloated pretty easily with my digestive problems for me eating more carbs is really easy that's the easiest way for me to overeat and keeping that in mind it's probably the same way for most people it's just it's so much easier to just pack down like bread with butter than it is to pack down this much more steak you know what I mean everyone knows this sensation subjectively so the science of satiety or fullness is really something that comes into play here so what I did honestly to gain that back when I lost I would literally just double the intake at each of my meals so for breakfast I typically have like two eggs with bread one slice of bread and I would just do two or three slices of bread with butter instead with those eggs or I would have eggs a couple eggs two pieces of bread with butter and some veggies for lunch when I had rice like I usually have chicken vegetables and rice that's a typical meal for me kind of Mediterranean I would just have double the serving of rice kind of straightforward right for dinner I would do the same thing and at night when I went out I wouldn't be afraid to get you know if I got Mexican food to get a huge plate that also had a little bit less protein and a lot more rice and beans I wouldn't stress myself out about that so what I'm noticing is a easy trend is that it's easier to overeat on carbs and that honestly they're just a lot tastier to me it's way easier for me to hammer down you know six waffles with syrup which is a thousand calories versus a 16 ounce steak and I love steak so I think there's that level of satiety and fullness that different macronutrients provide and if you want to gain weight try doubling your carbon take to be honest because it works all right guys so I hope that helps and also let me know what you think of this kind of style a little bit more vlog mixed with my standing back at my place educational type video but before you go I want you to let me know down below let me know for you what things that are typical advice have not worked for you to gain weight and what things have worked best let me know below


Hey guys, Thundee here and welcome to our review of the Sony in-zone M3. Now, the M3 is something that was announced in 2022. It's finally here in 2023 and we checked out the M9 from Sony last year. Now, the M9, if you recall, was a 4K gaming monitor with a 104 to 4 hertz refresh rate. It was really nice. And what does the M3 bring to the table? First of all, side by side, they look similar, similar design, but they are clearly very different with the M9 on the left, the M3 on the right. The M3 brings something quite unique. This is a 1080p 27 inch IPS gaming monitor with a refresh rate of 240 hertz. So you're getting, of course, that fast refresh rate, especially for gamers who are looking for, you know, quick action, activity, all that fun stuff that you need. Now, response time you get is also one millisecond. So you've got all that built into this monitor. This is a HDR 400 monitor. So it's brighter in certain scenes. Now, when you look at the monitor itself, you've got the same features you have in the M9 where it tilts up and down. You can slide it back and forth. Now, I didn't mention this the first time with the M9. I do like the way the design of the stand is, but it does hinder if you have a smaller desk, because it would take up a lot of the footprint of the desk the way it's actually laid out. That's just an FYI for you guys out there, but it works out pretty well. Now, in terms of ports, you've got one display port, two HDMI 2.1 port, of course, which means it supports a variable refresh rate. You've got three USB ports, and it also has a built-in KVM. This is something we saw with the M9 from last year, and that's a pretty cool feature. Again, allowing you to switch and toggle between multiple devices. Of course, still using your keyboard and mouse connected. Absolutely lovely. Now, what does that mean for all this in terms of pricing? This is where Sony still does the same magic they did with the M9. It's priced at 549 bucks, which is truly impressive for a 27-inch 240Hz gaming monitor with these kinds of specs. So what are we getting with this? Now, let's look at some of the performance, first of all, when you're playing games like Doom Eternal, and getting that 240 frames per second is absolutely amazing for very smooth gameplay, very fast and responsive, looks absolutely gorgeous. Gameplay feels good. And again, for a gamer who is a pro gamer or at least is trying to be an elite gamer, this will help you, of course, with those faster refresh rates. Now, the in-zone M3 also comes with a lot of the features that you'd expect from the M9. So you have the software, which you can download, just like the M9, and use that, of course, to navigate the controls of the monitor itself. Or you can actually do that with the physical buttons right behind. There is a toggle joystick, as well as a power button on the back. It allows you to toggle between some of the cool features. There's some game features like an FPS counter. Of course, you've got your different gaming modes, FPS, Game 1, Game 2, RTS, all that fun stuff. And of course, you can toggle between your settings to customize this. Now, you can do a lot of that toggling pretty great, but because this is an in-zone monitor, it means that it also works with your PlayStation 5. And one of the cool things about the PlayStation 5 is that you don't have to actually go ahead and customize the monitor to fit the PlayStation 5, because it does that automatically. It's built-in, you plug in your PlayStation 5, it tells you, hey, look, this has already been customized for the PlayStation 5, but you can still change it to whatever you feel like. And that allows for some really crisp, beautiful gameplay. Because, of course, it supports HDMI 2.1, your PlayStation 5, all the features you'd expect from the PlayStation 5 work with this monitor pretty well. So, which means, of course, you've got some rich colors, HDR, VRR, playing something like God of War Ragnarok. Looks very vivid and bright, even though it's a dull-looking game, you still get a lot of that from there. Now, on the other side, it's got built-in speakers, two 2W speakers. Let's hear how they sound, and I'll tell you what I think. Honestly, they are pretty weak. This is one of the biggest downsides with this monitor is that these speakers do not do a good job in enhancing the sound, and the best thing to do, of course, is use a headset. You can use the in-zone headset from Sony, which we checked out. It's something I would say that pairs pretty well because, of course, the software features that are built-in, but honestly, the speakers are just not cut in the cake. Now, looking at what Sony has brought to the table with the M3, I think this is a solid gaming monitor. You have a ton of features, connectivity to the PlayStation 5, and also the fact that, of course, you get a ton of 40 hertz, especially for people who are trying to be pro gamers. So if you have any questions or any comments about the Sony in-zone M3 and you want to pick one up, use the links down below. Otherwise, don't forget to like, share, subscribe. Definitely check out more videos right now during CES because we are at the show, and always enjoy your entertainment.