...the thought of climate change killing off the planet is there of course, but on the other hand, I'm kinda curious about what types of evolutionary type changes climate change may bring about, I always used to joke, saying, if the dinosaur would have stopped climate change, there would be no humans today...😂😂😂🤣
I have spent hundreds of hours researching Anthropocene Climate Change. Climate Change is really serious. As long as Arctic Amplification continues to occur, there will be no going back to what was once, a 100% habitable planet. Most of the serious impacts of Climate Change are occurring between the 36th parallel and the equator. Depending on which side of the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean and which cycle "La nina or El Ninio or Indian Ocean Dipole, there is a good chance the populations on either side of those oceans are seeing increasing record flooding or increasing record drought that is killing wild life. Eventually large amounts of the global population with migrate into the northern latitudes of 49th parallel and into the Arctic like what occurred 52 million years ago when co2 levels were so high, that the Arctic turned Tropical. The extend of the surface area extended down to the 49th parallel. Example, in Bellingham there is the Chuckenut formation. In between sandwich layers of petrified sandstone is tropical Palm Fronds. Also tracks of Alligators were left behind.
@ Yes! There is basically no natural climate change occurring right now. If anything the climate should actually cool. I am heavily shortening 70 years of research. But it comes down to multiple fields we checked. So, we can measure how much energy the sun provides with satellites in orbit. They show, the same amount of energy comes from the sun as always. But, the planet absorbs more than before. There is only one explanation for more absorption: more greenhouse gases. Due to the rate of warming you can calculate how much more greenhouse gas there should be in order to account for the effect. It's quite a lot. And there are a bunch of greenhouse gas emitters out there: The ocean, animals, volcanoes, humans, etc. Turns out all the additional gas comes from humans. You can even measure specifically where the extra CO2 comes from by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes. Turns out almost all of it is ancient carbon. Millions of years old. Plus some methane. The only thing I wonder is: Are you actually wondering if we know or is it a question from a science denier who claims this is all a lie?
One of the best channels on RUclips. I often take you guys for granted. Then I come back and am reminded why I follow your channel, and try to watch as many videos of yours as I can.
If only globers could explain how the shuttle gets through the clusters of "satellites orbiting the earth"... What magical formula do yall use to make sure they aren't in the shuttles "path to the moon"...?🤔
@@clintonhart2652 well, it's really quite simple. Every one of them, every piece of them, every bolt or washer any astronaut has ever dropped, in fact, is recorded, tracked, and taken into consideration when they plan launches. It's not that complicated. Imagine it like a game of Frogger, for example, played by a very, very good player. They _know how_ to dodge the dangers. Why this is so complex to you, I have no idea. The concept of a wall of bits & pieces around the planet so dense that we can't safely launch anything is a real one. It's one that we could definitely have to worry about in the future, if we don't come up with a solution fairly soon. But it's _not_ the impenetrable screen you seem to try to be making it out to be, right now. So, perhaps, you know, try [try, mind you!] to use a better complaint against the globe model than this, because this fails, badly, from any angle you look at it. 😄😄😄😄 Then again, there _aren't_ any complaints against the heliocentric globe model that hold any weight whatsoever. You guys have failed, over and over again, to even comprehend non-Euclidean geometry, maths above the grade school level, or even 3D thinking. You failed the sextant challenge (or refused to take it, as you knew it would destroy you) even after claiming the sextant could only work on a flat "planet," because - surprise, surprise - it's designed specifically to work on a globe. Your comprehension of the way the globe model even works is pathetic, at best, in fact, so there's no wonder you guys fail over, and over, and over again. The real surprise is why, after being corrected over, and over, and over again, you guys continue to make the very same debunked arguments, at all. It's as bad as K. Hovind getting the basics of geology (or any other -ology, for that matter) wrong even after being proven wrong multiple times a year (often multiple times per debate, in fact). How you folks aren't too totally embarrassed to even show your virtual faces online after so many total failures is the real mystery, here. 😄😆😂🤣😂😆😄
I started watching Startalk because of Neil. BUT, I have become a regular listener and you could even say I’m addicted to the podcast now, because of Chuck!
I bet the earth is flat and NASA is a FAKE. As long as no one accepts the earth is flat ((which it is)). And no one will accept, you will lose 100%. CONSPIRACY IS REAL. Neil conspires against humanity. Skn
I thought plants need CO2 to breathe? Bill gates was talking all solar power and zero CO2. But also wants to blot out the sun so how does that work? No sun no solar power no CO2 no oxygen..... I'm an idiot so I'm asking
A lot about methods, not a lot (or nothing at all really) about findings. Kate didn't really answer questions - "What in your opinion is a better fit to fix X?" or "What will happen to X if Y happens?", and she says basically "Yeah, we analyze this stuff. And that stuff also. We do it this way". There's nothing about 'combating' climate change, the title should be changed...
No don't say that! Then it will be like hot ones all over again, a youtube channel accessible by almost everyone world wide, is so good that a television station snagged em up. I don't want my startalk going anywhere!!!
@@sandal_thong8631 He did. But the greater problem with Chuck is the distracting jokes, especially after they've just announced they have 5mins left. Not to mention the issues with name-pronunciation (which often takes ages).
@@akpanekpo6025 the name issue, it's called a shtick. Look it up. You might learn something new. Were it something they wanted to correct, they would simply show the person's name and Q onscreen. Obviously, they don't feel the need to correct it, as it's an intrinsic part of the show. And, if memory serves, he overcame a learning disability as a child, so his struggles with name pronunciation are understandable, anyway. On top of that, he's there _as a comedian._ Comedians do what? That's right! They tell _jokes!_ So, he was doing his _job,_ there, and here you are, complaining about someone doing their job correctly. 🙄 So yeah, congrats on complaining about someone doing their freaking job the way the job is supposed to be done. 😆 👍🏼
She should be a white house press secretary - great at dodging questions lol. She said WHY and HOW she should answer the questions but never answered 😂😂
She missed a career choice of being a politician for sure. In my country head scientists are also politicians more than scientists and i dislike those kind of people.
Let’s remember NASA is a business that exchanges work for money.. they aren’t just going to give away the things that make them successful to the public.. they study, understand and develop technology that they sell.
I was so excited seeing the title I hit the like button right away... But... I feel like I learnt about the scientific processes that they use to understand the topic. I was interested in the actual findings. So... 😞 Also, good luck to Humanity with this war in Europe. Stay safe everyone!
I know. I almost feel like she was hyperfocused on providing a foundation, without going in depth on almost anything. I was excited to use this information as ammo against nonbelievers, but honestly I got very little from this. ;_;
the way she manages to dodge specific questions, she may want to consider going into politics... she follows the rules after all, like "don't go answering questions, make your own statements instead."
she so boring and none the answers, answers any question. one of boring episode of startalk, i feel even neil and chuck try to make her answer question but they got nothing
Woah Chuck! Water has to give up energy in order to become ice, so if you could find a way to get over the energy barrier, you could theoretically make a glacier while also harvesting a huge amount of clean energy!
@Blake Belladonna it does not, as thermodynamics basically only cares about what is stable under which set of equilibrium conditions... It certainly does violate our current technical capabilities though.
But something like an iceberg is not cold it just has an absence of heat, right? If so it melting does not give you warmth or energy ? Ok now my head hurts!
@@TheLosamatic that's a great question, and one I wish more people would ask! Melting an iceberg takes away energy (heat) from it's surroundings, because you have changed its state to a higher energy one (liquid water)... This is why ice cubes make your drinks colder, heat energy from the drink was spent changing the solid water into higher energy liquid water. It's true to say that the iceberg has an "absence of heat" but only compared with things that are warmer than it. The ice still has energy (heat), that is true for any substance above absolute zero. The water molecules in the ice are still vibrating away. And if you give them enough energy to escape the solid state, the ice melts. So, if you were to somehow take a big pile of ocean water and make it into an iceberg or glacier, you would have extracted all of the energy that it had to be a liquid... Also if that glacier pushed up onto land somewhere, the sea level would go down (win win)!
Ms. Calvin, I never got a straight answer on one key question. How much uncertainty is on each variable of the climate models, and how much error propagation (both from the model and from computation) is accumulated on short, mid and long term scenarios. From a statistics perspective, we really should have clarity on this in order to properly understand the confidence of any prediction from the models.
the models have a margin of error that significantly exceeds 2 deg C, for both cooling and warming. In silica nonsense! in particularly regard to carbon dioxide hardly even a trace atmospheric gas... 380 parts carbon dioxide per one million parts water vapour (primary green house gas)! Add to that 18th c. discovery of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide using a lit taper as prof of gas presence, carbon dioxide doesn't have the mass for the troposphere to support it in the atmosphere. Global warming was debunked in 1886! Three percent into a cooling phase! And east antarctic has been growing. Glaciers travel at a measurable rate. Hubbard glacier creates an ice lake every 20-40 years moving from peak to sea in 400 years. The heavier a glacier is the faster it moves!
There's some uncertainty, especially considering the vast number of variables. However, there is not much uncertainty when it comes to the trend we're seeing since modern day records have been kept. Actual data. Uncertainty is a massive part of any science. Without uncertainty, what would any science really be?
@@MattIsntYoung 1000 parts co2 per million parts water vapour is still a trace atmospheric gas. Using values of combustion to claim an increase of atmospheric co2 is pseudo science! Try using a scientific narrative! Explain the hundred odd known carbon dioxide sinks found across the planet! ppm means a million molecules of water vapour per what ever number of foreign molecules are present in sample.
@@MattIsntYoung I understand your point. I did my masters in simulation. Computing error propagation (rounding due to memory constraints on each and every variable) alone can completely break a sim. Add that to all simplification that goes into a model (you can't simulate every particle and every interaction), and you're facing a true nightmare a few million interactions down the road. That being said, simulations are a VERY useful tool, but we must understand it's limitations. All I'm concerned about is that at the scale of a simulated global climate model, uncertainty could potentially be too large to draw meaningful conclusions.
This NASA spokesperson did more trying to avoid and evade questions than anything else. Neil, if you cover this topic again please do it yourself. She left so much unsaid, and just kept deferring to other experts. I don’t think she knows much in this field of global warming.
Great episode, and one of the more important ones. Would have been interesting to hear an actual discussion about the benefits of nuclear power versus all the inherent risks involved. Would also love to see deeper discussions on the climate crisis as well as on ecological systems in general.
There are many problems with nuclear fission. First of all global, uranium deposits are limited. If you wanted to meet global energy demand with only nuclear fission, global supply would run out in less then 30 years. Also most deposits are in remote areas like the himalayas, the andes ... and russia. Secondly, nuclear energy is actually the most expensive form of electricity generation, if you factor in uranium-mining and storage of nuclear waste, which is both tax-financed by all nations who run nuclear reactors. The cheapest form of energy is actually solar, then wind. Their only problem is, that they can function decentralized, so big corporations would lose their monopolies. Lastly, building new reactors are huge products, which take 15-20 years from planning to building. Which is just too slow to meat the Paris goals.
I didn't learn about Chief Scientist until today...... and I watch serious climate stuff non-stop... but most of the news I get is from 'authoritative' males... And they are all the sorta retired scientists you would expect! So I am glad we got a mid-career Earth Scientist focused on climate change who can teach to the public. I wish she was introduced to me on a more serious channel. I have taken this climate change self-education research seriously since 2007 when I ran for the Green Party before I had enough science background (radiation laws, heat equations, meteorology, earth history, planetology) to really understand carbon in the atmosphere...
Lord Nice takes climate science seriously. It's nice to know his Lordship educates while he preforms ie comedy. Outstanding episode as anticipated Brooklyn NY loves StarTalk #Dr.CalvinROCKS #Dr.Tyson #LordNice
Chuck is extremely intelligent and apparently quite well-versed in the way the universe works. We need more people like him to help make Science fun and interesting.
Having watched hundreds of StarTalk videos, this must be the WORST video ever. The guest hardly provided any answer at all. Reminded me about how I would just keep writing words and sentences in exams when I had no clue what to write. Please never ever get her back and that's someone from NASA, uugghhh. Thank You Chuck for still making it so much enjoyable.
For the “If we stopped burning fossil fuels today” question .wouldn’t it give the earth time to recover trees would still pull carbon out of the atmosphere reversing the effects of climate change .
I just noticed that some parts are different in video than in podcast, why??? At 35:50 Kate should have been talking about NISAR (podcast), but not Dr. Tyson asking the difference (video). That parts missing.
GeoEngineering, for instance, the Sahara, would reduce the tons of dust that gets blown across the Atlantic to be deposited in South America that fertelizes the rain forest. Causing the rain forest to decline as the Sahara forest increases....? Unintended consequences.
True..infact in eastern sahara there is a small section that most of the Atlantic hurricanes are spawned. A few Scientists suggested we plant trees agriculture there to stop hurricanes. If we do entire Sahara would be awesome. Ps Check out Morocco Solar panel project largest in the world. שלום
Very informative episode. My concern is with nuclear power safety given the issues with Russia and Ukraine. Hope to have this addressed in a future episode. Thanks as always.
Did you forget they made molotov coctails from fossile fuels?? What exactly are you afraid of, the VVER reactors are different then the RBMK from Chernobyl. Chernobyl did not have a containment building. Have you checked how the wildlife around Chernobyl is doing?? We evolved having to deal with radiation from decaying isotopes and space. Ever walked in the sun; ever been on a plane. The dose over time determines the health effect.
Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl were shelled, staff taken hostage, power lost. How can this not freak people out? You know no one worries about catastrophic disaster occurring at the wind or solar farm.
@@tamarjaffe7142 wind and solar is not stored potential energy. It always has to be collected. That's the major drawback of renewables, no stored energy.
Never answer the question about nuclear power. Also most of the answers were kind of the same. She did not share any data findings that NASA has collected so I feel like most of the questions were not really answered and just rose more questions. Just wish it was more informative and with info we actually did not know.
Being homeless in LA I look forward to your videos and Brian Greenes videos as well. You guys keep me looking up. Thank you so much for what you guys do.
@@chinor3999 yeah it’s glaringly obvious. If she’s a lead scientist on climate change, she has definitely done her research on nuclear and is intentionally holding back information because the left is against nuclear energy.
The public issue with nuclear power hinges around politicians looking for a short term solution. A nuclear power plant takes longer to build and costs more money than a coal plant. A politician has to convince people to use that money for a result that will be in the next election cycle.
According to the Laws of Thermodynamics Entropy the world is a heat engine and you have to have energy to maintain civilizations so how do you keep energy productive without oil reserves and burning fossil fuels greed from oil companies
I absolutely love Star Talk and really want to hear more about the climate crisis, but this talk literally provided no data or deep insights into current trends which is surprising coming from a expert in mathematical modeling used in climate change. It was also brought down by the fact that no expertise could be provided on geo engineering techniques to combat the problem. We learned a little about climate processes but not specifically on where we stand in the climate crisis - akin to describing the water cycle without explaining how those processes are being affected today. I feel like this is one talk that needed a different expert to weigh in.
Planting a tree is extremely inefficient though considering it take so long to grow algae on the other hand with these vertical Farms of algae could scrub the atmosphere at a much faster rate considering the Algae produces most of the oxygen for the planet
12:18 Can not use any ice machine without generating heat. Much more heat than the created ice can remove by the way. After all, that is why refrigerators are not vented internally. It is why a window air conditioner is vented outside and not inside. Compressing a refrigerant generates a LOT of heat.
India has a lot of violent hot spots in the summer time. Usa Arizona mainly areas around vegas is to hot for human habitat Anywhere in the Sahara South America Chile desert has some too hot for humans
Southern Bangladesh is experiencing climate migration because of increased flooding. The Pacific Islands are being submerged. The climbing average temperatures are causing much of the Middle East to edge towards depopulating. The DoD Climate Assessment can give you a general idea (the specifics are classified).
How difficult would it be to put the patron’s name on the screen when asking their question? I enjoy Chuck’s name-butchering, but this way, at least the patron can actually be recognized.
she was terrible. she did not provide any real answers to the questions. especially the question about nuclear power, she did not answer the question at all. thumbs down for not holding her accountable.
:Politicians: we are at the point of no return. :Cambrian explosion: lol. NASA still not looking back that far in geologic history eh? Also for the majority of time life has existed on Earth- there was no ice sheets. What we have here is normalcy bias. We should be focused on preparing for more climate change, not averting it- it's inefficient and it's also pie in the sky wishing that the rest of the world will do their part. It might happen, but why take the risk.
The answer to the 40:36 segment I think is wrong. If no more fossil fuel used, temp will go down, cause trees and plants will still be growing and accumulating CO2 from air, so my bet is that temp would drop. I mean, they talk about equations and stuff, but removing a huge part of it, you achieve the balance that it stays like this? Who sais Earths' level of balance is the current level of when you cut the fossil fuel usage ... maybe it's one degree hotter or cooler ... not to mention there is variability there too. And not just Earths' factors, but external as well ... I wonder if someone reads this ...
24:34 Doesn't Neil know about albedo? If you somewhat enginner a forest over a desert, there will be less albedo (less sunlight being reflected). So, while you will have less CO2, you will also have higher temperatures, thus higher chance that the new forest caches fire. Maybe you could mitigate this by using "albino" trees, but I think a desert still reflects more sunlight than a forest populated with albino trees (besides probably not being the most efficient trees for CO2 sequestration). It's curious because Katherine didn't observed this either, but after a few minutes she referred to a sort of opposite effect (if you wipe a forest in higher lattitudes, the albedo will increase because of the snow falling in place).
This is excellent. Dr Calvin is so eloquent, providing rich and textured responses to every question on the table. That's the sign of a true scientist.
Why not use the snow machines that they use to build up ski slopes to repair or rebuild the iced sheets to combat the climate change?? So that the ice sheets can be rebuilt or repaired to a previous date or amount minimally affecting sea level changes?? I’m sure that a few of those machines could help build up enough to help reflect the sun’s energy even more.. Just a simple thought .
Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor can it be destroyed, it can only transferred from one state to another. Simply speaking, you have to heat something up to cool something down.
2 года назад
Do we know the natural rate of climate change to determine the human effect?
Yeah whole talk with her and whenever she responded seemed a bit strange. It looked like to me someone said to her don't respond to questions with concrete and detail answer.
@@milosstojanovic4623 yeah she is new to the NASA Chief Scientist role so maybe she was just overly paranoid about being quoted out of context... like "NASA Chief Scientist claims that Nuclear energy is the solution to the climate disaster"
I love her answers. She talks just until she feels she's answered the question, and then she shuts up and doesn't go beyond that. I think she's a bona fide nerd 🥰 Or, there's a possibility she's being politically correct...
You may be surprised how much ecology is dependent on desert climates. Don't mess with them, without fully understanding the impact. Assume nothing! There is actually, a lot of life in a desert. 27.29 Exactly! this part of why you don't just mess with a desert. You could turn it green, only to find it now adds too much moisture to the air, turning bread baskets regions into useless swamp land, or worse. When the guy asked about "terraforming" our deserts, He is actually talking about geoengineering. Our environment is already "Terran," so we have no need to terraform. But geoengineering, to be effective, must be done with fine coverage and on a global scale, to allow for complete and perfect control of the weather and moisture levels in each region. This would be massive and require techs we don't yet have. So instead, we can propose changes to areas that are within out technological capabilities and determine the overall effect of such changes, assuming we even KNOW all the variables involved. It is so complex of an issue.... In the old Soviet Union, they tried similar stuff and caused massive ecological catastrophes (note the plural,) from which they have still not recovered and I doubt they ever could. So there is precedent to look at, for this. 27:50 Precisely! What I have been saying, without saying those exact words. Unfortunately, the use of such words tend to put people off, as nothing than preaching. this is unfortunate, because it is so real.
I totally agree with this episode. However pollution of land, sea and air needs to be the focal point. If only we can find environmentally friendly ways to address our daily activities.
So the colour white doesn't absorb heat, it reflects it (away). I have always wondered if painting all the roofs of buildings white and keeping them white would have any cooling effect, and if so, how much? 🤔
Chuck Nice new that algae was the most efficient way to remove carbon and ask that question specifically after someone asked about algae farms in order to redirect it back to the most efficient way possible. Don't let Chuck Nice is Persona of an ignorant comedian fool you he is often the smartest one in the room even with Neil deGrasse Tyson in the room with him I know they're not in the same room anymore but you know what I mean
Neil and Chuck - concerning nuclear power, it does have a couple of real drawbacks: It will take more than 10 years to get one on-line just because of siting, and safety procedures that are in place for very good reasons. Also, we have not solved the waste issue - US power plants store their nuclear waste in holding tanks by the plant. Third, a nuclear power plant doesn't last forever - not the least because radiation breaks down the material in the reactor. And that gives you 100s of times more radioactive waste to deal with (low-grade, but hard to concentrate). Fifth - nuclear power plants pose great risks from both terrorists with bombs and dictatorial regimes with 'armies' of hackers. Sixth nuclear energy is more expensive than actual renewables. Seventh: uranium is not renewable, and there are limited amounts of accessible U in the world - also in places that have geo-political ramifications. I hope we have learnt from our experience with geo-political consequences of our oil addiction. The US could actually cover it's energy needs with either solar or wind - but, of course, we should use both, *and* hydro and geothermal, etc. It is mostly a matter of political will to enact motivation in the market place - for example a revenue neutral carbon tax. We have the technology - we don't need more studies before we act! On a massive scale, we need to "deploy, baby, deploy!!!"
What do you think-are we past the tipping point? Or is our climate situation still salvageable?
We are tipping into a new normal which may or may not be stable.
...the thought of climate change killing off the planet is there of course, but on the other hand, I'm kinda curious about what types of evolutionary type changes climate change may bring about, I always used to joke, saying, if the dinosaur would have stopped climate change, there would be no humans today...😂😂😂🤣
I have spent hundreds of hours researching Anthropocene Climate Change. Climate Change is really serious. As long as Arctic Amplification continues to occur, there will be no going back to what was once, a 100% habitable planet. Most of the serious impacts of Climate Change are occurring between the 36th parallel and the equator. Depending on which side of the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean and which cycle "La nina or El Ninio or Indian Ocean Dipole, there is a good chance the populations on either side of those oceans are seeing increasing record flooding or increasing record drought that is killing wild life. Eventually large amounts of the global population with migrate into the northern latitudes of 49th parallel and into the Arctic like what occurred 52 million years ago when co2 levels were so high, that the Arctic turned Tropical. The extend of the surface area extended down to the 49th parallel. Example, in Bellingham there is the Chuckenut formation. In between sandwich layers of petrified sandstone is tropical Palm Fronds. Also tracks of Alligators were left behind.
Tipped already IMO. Just getting ready now for the big collapse, and preserving important items for future evolved species to find and learn from. 👍👌😁
@ Yes! There is basically no natural climate change occurring right now. If anything the climate should actually cool.
I am heavily shortening 70 years of research. But it comes down to multiple fields we checked. So, we can measure how much energy the sun provides with satellites in orbit. They show, the same amount of energy comes from the sun as always. But, the planet absorbs more than before. There is only one explanation for more absorption: more greenhouse gases. Due to the rate of warming you can calculate how much more greenhouse gas there should be in order to account for the effect. It's quite a lot. And there are a bunch of greenhouse gas emitters out there: The ocean, animals, volcanoes, humans, etc. Turns out all the additional gas comes from humans. You can even measure specifically where the extra CO2 comes from by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes. Turns out almost all of it is ancient carbon. Millions of years old. Plus some methane. The only thing I wonder is: Are you actually wondering if we know or is it a question from a science denier who claims this is all a lie?
One of the best channels on RUclips. I often take you guys for granted. Then I come back and am reminded why I follow your channel, and try to watch as many videos of yours as I can.
Wow, thank you!
If only globers could explain how the shuttle gets through the clusters of "satellites orbiting the earth"... What magical formula do yall use to make sure they aren't in the shuttles "path to the moon"...?🤔
@@clintonhart2652 Shhhh! Adults speaking.
@@clintonhart2652 well, it's really quite simple. Every one of them, every piece of them, every bolt or washer any astronaut has ever dropped, in fact, is recorded, tracked, and taken into consideration when they plan launches. It's not that complicated. Imagine it like a game of Frogger, for example, played by a very, very good player. They _know how_ to dodge the dangers. Why this is so complex to you, I have no idea.
The concept of a wall of bits & pieces around the planet so dense that we can't safely launch anything is a real one. It's one that we could definitely have to worry about in the future, if we don't come up with a solution fairly soon. But it's _not_ the impenetrable screen you seem to try to be making it out to be, right now. So, perhaps, you know, try [try, mind you!] to use a better complaint against the globe model than this, because this fails, badly, from any angle you look at it. 😄😄😄😄
Then again, there _aren't_ any complaints against the heliocentric globe model that hold any weight whatsoever. You guys have failed, over and over again, to even comprehend non-Euclidean geometry, maths above the grade school level, or even 3D thinking. You failed the sextant challenge (or refused to take it, as you knew it would destroy you) even after claiming the sextant could only work on a flat "planet," because - surprise, surprise - it's designed specifically to work on a globe.
Your comprehension of the way the globe model even works is pathetic, at best, in fact, so there's no wonder you guys fail over, and over, and over again. The real surprise is why, after being corrected over, and over, and over again, you guys continue to make the very same debunked arguments, at all. It's as bad as K. Hovind getting the basics of geology (or any other -ology, for that matter) wrong even after being proven wrong multiple times a year (often multiple times per debate, in fact).
How you folks aren't too totally embarrassed to even show your virtual faces online after so many total failures is the real mystery, here. 😄😆😂🤣😂😆😄
@@MaryAnnNytowl Haha!! This is great! You are great at belittling... Proving you're correct not so much. Please don't delete your comment. 👍
I started watching Startalk because of Neil. BUT, I have become a regular listener and you could even say I’m addicted to the podcast now, because of Chuck!
When I see a notification startalk uploaded a video...smile on my face
Smile on ours when we see this comment! :)
Same here , Neil & chuck are seriously funny an Educational . cant wait to meet them 1 day
@@StarTalk question. Will starTalk ever go to space 🤘🌮🍻🇺🇸 now that would be 1 for the books ! Live EP.1
I bet the earth is flat and NASA is a FAKE. As long as no one accepts the earth is flat ((which it is)). And no one will accept, you will lose 100%.
CONSPIRACY IS REAL.
Neil conspires against humanity.
Skn
I thought plants need CO2 to breathe? Bill gates was talking all solar power and zero CO2. But also wants to blot out the sun so how does that work? No sun no solar power no CO2 no oxygen..... I'm an idiot so I'm asking
My favorite part of any Startalk is when Neil is respectfully, quietly waiting for Chuck to stop laughing at his own joke before continuing.
A lot about methods, not a lot (or nothing at all really) about findings. Kate didn't really answer questions - "What in your opinion is a better fit to fix X?" or "What will happen to X if Y happens?", and she says basically "Yeah, we analyze this stuff. And that stuff also. We do it this way".
There's nothing about 'combating' climate change, the title should be changed...
I can't believe Neil actually lets the guest complete her sentences - an indication of the great programme that this can be.
No don't say that! Then it will be like hot ones all over again, a youtube channel accessible by almost everyone world wide, is so good that a television station snagged em up. I don't want my startalk going anywhere!!!
@@ryanearl6118 I'll say no more, then:)
Too bad Chuck interrupted her, though.
@@sandal_thong8631 He did. But the greater problem with Chuck is the distracting jokes, especially after they've just announced they have 5mins left. Not to mention the issues with name-pronunciation (which often takes ages).
@@akpanekpo6025 the name issue, it's called a shtick. Look it up. You might learn something new. Were it something they wanted to correct, they would simply show the person's name and Q onscreen. Obviously, they don't feel the need to correct it, as it's an intrinsic part of the show. And, if memory serves, he overcame a learning disability as a child, so his struggles with name pronunciation are understandable, anyway. On top of that, he's there _as a comedian._ Comedians do what? That's right! They tell _jokes!_ So, he was doing his _job,_ there, and here you are, complaining about someone doing their job correctly. 🙄
So yeah, congrats on complaining about someone doing their freaking job the way the job is supposed to be done. 😆 👍🏼
She should be a white house press secretary - great at dodging questions lol. She said WHY and HOW she should answer the questions but never answered 😂😂
OMG I felt the same. The 'non-answers' made me so frustrated lol
She missed a career choice of being a politician for sure. In my country head scientists are also politicians more than scientists and i dislike those kind of people.
Why? You already have one, or do you need another one to circle the other direction around?
@@lamnurn WTF you on about mate?
Let’s remember NASA is a business that exchanges work for money.. they aren’t just going to give away the things that make them successful to the public.. they study, understand and develop technology that they sell.
I was so excited seeing the title I hit the like button right away... But...
I feel like I learnt about the scientific processes that they use to understand the topic. I was interested in the actual findings. So... 😞
Also, good luck to Humanity with this war in Europe. Stay safe everyone!
I know. I almost feel like she was hyperfocused on providing a foundation, without going in depth on almost anything. I was excited to use this information as ammo against nonbelievers, but honestly I got very little from this. ;_;
the way she manages to dodge specific questions, she may want to consider going into politics... she follows the rules after all, like "don't go answering questions, make your own statements instead."
I second this
I agree with you
she so boring and none the answers, answers any question. one of boring episode of startalk, i feel even neil and chuck try to make her answer question but they got nothing
Man she can dance around a direct answer.
Woah Chuck! Water has to give up energy in order to become ice, so if you could find a way to get over the energy barrier, you could theoretically make a glacier while also harvesting a huge amount of clean energy!
@Blake Belladonna it does not, as thermodynamics basically only cares about what is stable under which set of equilibrium conditions... It certainly does violate our current technical capabilities though.
But something like an iceberg is not cold it just has an absence of heat, right? If so it melting does not give you warmth or energy ? Ok now my head hurts!
@@TheLosamatic that's a great question, and one I wish more people would ask!
Melting an iceberg takes away energy (heat) from it's surroundings, because you have changed its state to a higher energy one (liquid water)... This is why ice cubes make your drinks colder, heat energy from the drink was spent changing the solid water into higher energy liquid water.
It's true to say that the iceberg has an "absence of heat" but only compared with things that are warmer than it. The ice still has energy (heat), that is true for any substance above absolute zero. The water molecules in the ice are still vibrating away. And if you give them enough energy to escape the solid state, the ice melts.
So, if you were to somehow take a big pile of ocean water and make it into an iceberg or glacier, you would have extracted all of the energy that it had to be a liquid... Also if that glacier pushed up onto land somewhere, the sea level would go down (win win)!
Ms. Calvin, I never got a straight answer on one key question.
How much uncertainty is on each variable of the climate models, and how much error propagation (both from the model and from computation) is accumulated on short, mid and long term scenarios.
From a statistics perspective, we really should have clarity on this in order to properly understand the confidence of any prediction from the models.
the models have a margin of error that significantly exceeds 2 deg C, for both cooling and warming. In silica nonsense! in particularly regard to carbon dioxide hardly even a trace atmospheric gas... 380 parts carbon dioxide per one million parts water vapour (primary green house gas)!
Add to that 18th c. discovery of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide using a lit taper as prof of gas presence, carbon dioxide doesn't have the mass for the troposphere to support it in the atmosphere. Global warming was debunked in 1886! Three percent into a cooling phase! And east antarctic has been growing. Glaciers travel at a measurable rate. Hubbard glacier creates an ice lake every 20-40 years moving from peak to sea in 400 years. The heavier a glacier is the faster it moves!
@@craigscott2315 pretty sure co2 concentrations passed 400ppm quite a while ago.
There's some uncertainty, especially considering the vast number of variables.
However, there is not much uncertainty when it comes to the trend we're seeing since modern day records have been kept. Actual data.
Uncertainty is a massive part of any science. Without uncertainty, what would any science really be?
@@MattIsntYoung 1000 parts co2 per million parts water vapour is still a trace atmospheric gas. Using values of combustion to claim an increase of atmospheric co2 is pseudo science! Try using a scientific narrative!
Explain the hundred odd known carbon dioxide sinks found across the planet!
ppm means a million molecules of water vapour per what ever number of foreign molecules are present in sample.
@@MattIsntYoung I understand your point. I did my masters in simulation. Computing error propagation (rounding due to memory constraints on each and every variable) alone can completely break a sim. Add that to all simplification that goes into a model (you can't simulate every particle and every interaction), and you're facing a true nightmare a few million interactions down the road.
That being said, simulations are a VERY useful tool, but we must understand it's limitations.
All I'm concerned about is that at the scale of a simulated global climate model, uncertainty could potentially be too large to draw meaningful conclusions.
This NASA spokesperson did more trying to avoid and evade questions than anything else. Neil, if you cover this topic again please do it yourself. She left so much unsaid, and just kept deferring to other experts. I don’t think she knows much in this field of global warming.
Just like all the other so called experts
That canvas-mounted image behind Katherine is amazing. I want one.
That equal librium theory is fascinating . Chuck your heart is in it. Peace and love
In all seriousness. Chuck the comedian is the voice of the people. We love you man❤️❤️❤️
Great episode, and one of the more important ones. Would have been interesting to hear an actual discussion about the benefits of nuclear power versus all the inherent risks involved. Would also love to see deeper discussions on the climate crisis as well as on ecological systems in general.
There are many problems with nuclear fission. First of all global, uranium deposits are limited. If you wanted to meet global energy demand with only nuclear fission, global supply would run out in less then 30 years. Also most deposits are in remote areas like the himalayas, the andes ... and russia.
Secondly, nuclear energy is actually the most expensive form of electricity generation, if you factor in uranium-mining and storage of nuclear waste, which is both tax-financed by all nations who run nuclear reactors. The cheapest form of energy is actually solar, then wind. Their only problem is, that they can function decentralized, so big corporations would lose their monopolies.
Lastly, building new reactors are huge products, which take 15-20 years from planning to building. Which is just too slow to meat the Paris goals.
Lets go! I love u Chuck and Neil
I didn't learn about Chief Scientist until today...... and I watch serious climate stuff non-stop... but most of the news I get is from 'authoritative' males...
And they are all the sorta retired scientists you would expect!
So I am glad we got a mid-career Earth Scientist focused on climate change who can teach to the public. I wish she was introduced to me on a more serious channel. I have taken this climate change self-education research seriously since 2007 when I ran for the Green Party before I had enough science background (radiation laws, heat equations, meteorology, earth history, planetology) to really understand carbon in the atmosphere...
I'm loving this lady, she's awesome
I'm in the Cryosphere sipping a cold drink and watching this yeah baby 😎
Brrr!
The only channel i get to enjoy reading comments... As always love the Trash Talk...
Lord Nice takes climate science seriously. It's nice to know his Lordship educates while he preforms ie comedy.
Outstanding episode as anticipated Brooklyn NY loves StarTalk
#Dr.CalvinROCKS #Dr.Tyson #LordNice
Educating WHILE performing comedy, a new sort of renaissance man.
@@StarTalk That's the fact "JACK"
Chuck is extremely intelligent and apparently quite well-versed in the way the universe works. We need more people like him to help make Science fun and interesting.
Awwww! Our favorite Scientist; Thank You for the notifications, make us feel special.
You make us feel special!
Having watched hundreds of StarTalk videos, this must be the WORST video ever. The guest hardly provided any answer at all. Reminded me about how I would just keep writing words and sentences in exams when I had no clue what to write. Please never ever get her back and that's someone from NASA, uugghhh. Thank You Chuck for still making it so much enjoyable.
Touch and hold a clip to pin it. Unpinned clips will be deleted after 1 hour.
For the “If we stopped burning fossil fuels today” question .wouldn’t it give the earth time to recover trees would still pull carbon out of the atmosphere reversing the effects of climate change .
I just noticed that some parts are different in video than in podcast, why??? At 35:50 Kate should have been talking about NISAR (podcast), but not Dr. Tyson asking the difference (video). That parts missing.
GeoEngineering, for instance, the Sahara, would reduce the tons of dust that gets blown across the Atlantic to be deposited in South America that fertelizes the rain forest. Causing the rain forest to decline as the Sahara forest increases....? Unintended consequences.
True..infact in eastern sahara there is a small section that most of the Atlantic hurricanes are spawned.
A few Scientists suggested we plant trees agriculture there to stop hurricanes.
If we do entire Sahara would be awesome.
Ps Check out Morocco Solar panel project largest in the world.
שלום
Im on it bro
Love you all!
Very informative episode. My concern is with nuclear power safety given the issues with Russia and Ukraine. Hope to have this addressed in a future episode. Thanks as always.
Did you forget they made molotov coctails from fossile fuels?? What exactly are you afraid of, the VVER reactors are different then the RBMK from Chernobyl. Chernobyl did not have a containment building.
Have you checked how the wildlife around Chernobyl is doing?? We evolved having to deal with radiation from decaying isotopes and space. Ever walked in the sun; ever been on a plane. The dose over time determines the health effect.
Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl were shelled, staff taken hostage, power lost. How can this not freak people out? You know no one worries about catastrophic disaster occurring at the wind or solar farm.
@@tamarjaffe7142 so what exactly does the power loss at Chernobyl mean. Please explain the dangers there??
@@tamarjaffe7142 wind and solar is not stored potential energy. It always has to be collected. That's the major drawback of renewables, no stored energy.
Pleased they're discussing this topic, glad I found this channel
We're glad you found us too!
I can see in the future that young patron will be a guest answering questions from patrons.
Never answer the question about nuclear power. Also most of the answers were kind of the same. She did not share any data findings that NASA has collected so I feel like most of the questions were not really answered and just rose more questions. Just wish it was more informative and with info we actually did not know.
Being homeless in LA I look forward to your videos and Brian Greenes videos as well. You guys keep me looking up. Thank you so much for what you guys do.
Consider looking up jobs hiring near you
Oh wow! I'm glad we can be a bright spot in your day. Much luck to you!
@@ConsumeYourSoul619 - he didn't say "unemployed". Snark fail.
Try Sean Carroll, Brian Keating, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Lex Fridman.
@@TheRealJamesKirk right? Lmao just can't afford 2600 a month for a one bedroom. I don't have help, my parents aren't around.
Hope you have her back again.
Why’d she give such a none answer to the nuclear energy question even when Neil was constantly encouraging her say more? 🤔
She very political
@@chinor3999 yeah it’s glaringly obvious. If she’s a lead scientist on climate change, she has definitely done her research on nuclear and is intentionally holding back information because the left is against nuclear energy.
I love how NDT and especially Chuck mix serious scientific discussion.with humor!!
The earth is a living being we just don't understand it's complexity yet. Maybe one day we will and we can live in harmony with her 🙂
What a great interview!
The public issue with nuclear power hinges around politicians looking for a short term solution. A nuclear power plant takes longer to build and costs more money than a coal plant. A politician has to convince people to use that money for a result that will be in the next election cycle.
Germany switching from nuclear to coal and gas because of Fukushima was political and a damn shame.
Number 1 podcast in the world!
According to the Laws of Thermodynamics Entropy the world is a heat engine and you have to have energy to maintain civilizations so how do you keep energy productive without oil reserves and burning fossil fuels greed from oil companies
I absolutely love Star Talk and really want to hear more about the climate crisis, but this talk literally provided no data or deep insights into current trends which is surprising coming from a expert in mathematical modeling used in climate change. It was also brought down by the fact that no expertise could be provided on geo engineering techniques to combat the problem. We learned a little about climate processes but not specifically on where we stand in the climate crisis - akin to describing the water cycle without explaining how those processes are being affected today.
I feel like this is one talk that needed a different expert to weigh in.
Planting a tree is extremely inefficient though considering it take so long to grow algae on the other hand with these vertical Farms of algae could scrub the atmosphere at a much faster rate considering the Algae produces most of the oxygen for the planet
Always a pleasure 👏🏽
Love Chuck and Neil. I’m coming
Finally! Responsible jokes and education about climate! More please!
Best time I’ve ever learned about Climate Change!
so what did you learn?
12:18 Can not use any ice machine without generating heat. Much more heat than the created ice can remove by the way.
After all, that is why refrigerators are not vented internally. It is why a window air conditioner is vented outside and not inside.
Compressing a refrigerant generates a LOT of heat.
What areas are inhabitantable already ?
India has a lot of violent hot spots in the summer time.
Usa Arizona mainly areas around vegas is to hot for human habitat
Anywhere in the Sahara
South America Chile desert has some too hot for humans
Southern Bangladesh is experiencing climate migration because of increased flooding. The Pacific Islands are being submerged. The climbing average temperatures are causing much of the Middle East to edge towards depopulating. The DoD Climate Assessment can give you a general idea (the specifics are classified).
@@TheRealJamesKirk I heard Australia is going under too
@@blackcallah - most of their people live on the coasts, so they might have some problems, certainly.
How difficult would it be to put the patron’s name on the screen when asking their question? I enjoy Chuck’s name-butchering, but this way, at least the patron can actually be recognized.
I agree, it would be nice to have better editing for the more visual learners out there
More dad jokes please. The jar Commet killed me. First class joke LOL
Damn Violetta, I hope you become an awesome person that will change our world for better
We've long passed the tipping point, no matter what politicians try to tell you...
Nice summer day with a temperature of 140 degrees 😎🔥
Lmao I had a dream I met Neil and chuck IRL, I was so excited and then I woke up 😐
Rats!
Thanx Again 👍 👍
Thinking in systems definitely needs more focus. We’re seeing the limitations of linear thinking.
she was terrible. she did not provide any real answers to the questions. especially the question about nuclear power, she did not answer the question at all. thumbs down for not holding her accountable.
If a scientist was a politician, I guess they would sound like Chief Scientist Katherine.
Somehow I left me feeling frustrated…?
Hi guys
Thanks for the video 😎
You're welcome!
:Politicians: we are at the point of no return.
:Cambrian explosion: lol.
NASA still not looking back that far in geologic history eh? Also for the majority of time life has existed on Earth- there was no ice sheets. What we have here is normalcy bias. We should be focused on preparing for more climate change, not averting it- it's inefficient and it's also pie in the sky wishing that the rest of the world will do their part. It might happen, but why take the risk.
The point of no return was a Phantom of the Opera music track. Glad I could help.😊
sometimes chuck is the smartest human
"That's where they RAN" FACTS
The answer to the 40:36 segment I think is wrong. If no more fossil fuel used, temp will go down, cause trees and plants will still be growing and accumulating CO2 from air, so my bet is that temp would drop. I mean, they talk about equations and stuff, but removing a huge part of it, you achieve the balance that it stays like this? Who sais Earths' level of balance is the current level of when you cut the fossil fuel usage ... maybe it's one degree hotter or cooler ... not to mention there is variability there too. And not just Earths' factors, but external as well ...
I wonder if someone reads this ...
This was one of the better ones in a sec lol
I usually listen to startslk on Spotify then come back home and watch the same thing. Love your work!
24:34 Doesn't Neil know about albedo? If you somewhat enginner a forest over a desert, there will be less albedo (less sunlight being reflected). So, while you will have less CO2, you will also have higher temperatures, thus higher chance that the new forest caches fire. Maybe you could mitigate this by using "albino" trees, but I think a desert still reflects more sunlight than a forest populated with albino trees (besides probably not being the most efficient trees for CO2 sequestration).
It's curious because Katherine didn't observed this either, but after a few minutes she referred to a sort of opposite effect (if you wipe a forest in higher lattitudes, the albedo will increase because of the snow falling in place).
This is excellent. Dr Calvin is so eloquent, providing rich and textured responses to every question on the table. That's the sign of a true scientist.
/s?
Chuck you are amazing! You pronounced my name correctly the very first time. Most people butcher my name. Congratulations! - Theresa Anoskey
Fun fact. I personally KNOW and regularly observe the effects of converting trees into carbon 😎
Oooo, tell us about it!
@@StarTalk I partake of the medicinal herb canibis sometimes 😁
Also when I go camping with campfires.
Beat realistic episode yet
Best viewing content currently in the present time, y'all surpassed my Lakers 😂
Comment on China please.
The great wall is not visible from space, but China pollution is...
Great show. Thanks!
You're welcome!
Have you/do you ever watch Star Trek Discovery or The Expanse? Thoughts on their accuracy? It would be cool for you to do scene breakdowns.
Why not use the snow machines that they use to build up ski slopes to repair or rebuild the iced sheets to combat the climate change?? So that the ice sheets can be rebuilt or repaired to a previous date or amount minimally affecting sea level changes?? I’m sure that a few of those machines could help build up enough to help reflect the sun’s energy even more..
Just a simple thought .
Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor can it be destroyed, it can only transferred from one state to another.
Simply speaking, you have to heat something up to cool something down.
Do we know the natural rate of climate change to determine the human effect?
Whats up with the model and data? why don’t you tell us whats ur data says? Feels like repeated answer to me.
The best channel am following. Checking everyday for new videos
I have a question to the community here. Is there any website, or other place, were i can discuss some ideas and theorys i have?
I love this channel!
The first time a questions gets asked in a way that the guest can contribute anything of substance starts 27:00 in.
Why do they not use MOXIE to create oxygen on Earth
It's coming next season bro.
Could you explain that Greenland was ( partially ) green in the viking era and the sea level higher, so the world being warmer?
DJ NICE!!!! Signing off. There you go, Chuck, your own oka outro.
Portugal in da House!! 💪
Non-specific questions get non-specific answers. Specific questions get clear answers.
Think this through vibonacci
any questions about climate change are a waste of time
Neill is the man.
Good episode although A little bit disappointed with the politically careful answers...
Yeah whole talk with her and whenever she responded seemed a bit strange. It looked like to me someone said to her don't respond to questions with concrete and detail answer.
@@milosstojanovic4623 yeah she is new to the NASA Chief Scientist role so maybe she was just overly paranoid about being quoted out of context... like "NASA Chief Scientist claims that Nuclear energy is the solution to the climate disaster"
@@DW-nx4dl maybe, still her answers felt like waste of their, patrons and our time. Did not like it at all
@@milosstojanovic4623 yeah I can't disagree to be fair
Although I do understand why to an extent I didn't think it was necessary to be that guarded
I love her answers. She talks just until she feels she's answered the question, and then she shuts up and doesn't go beyond that. I think she's a bona fide nerd 🥰
Or, there's a possibility she's being politically correct...
I can vouch for her nerd and geek cards actually. 🤓
You may be surprised how much ecology is dependent on desert climates. Don't mess with them, without fully understanding the impact. Assume nothing! There is actually, a lot of life in a desert.
27.29 Exactly! this part of why you don't just mess with a desert. You could turn it green, only to find it now adds too much moisture to the air, turning bread baskets regions into useless swamp land, or worse. When the guy asked about "terraforming" our deserts, He is actually talking about geoengineering. Our environment is already "Terran," so we have no need to terraform. But geoengineering, to be effective, must be done with fine coverage and on a global scale, to allow for complete and perfect control of the weather and moisture levels in each region. This would be massive and require techs we don't yet have. So instead, we can propose changes to areas that are within out technological capabilities and determine the overall effect of such changes, assuming we even KNOW all the variables involved. It is so complex of an issue....
In the old Soviet Union, they tried similar stuff and caused massive ecological catastrophes (note the plural,) from which they have still not recovered and I doubt they ever could. So there is precedent to look at, for this.
27:50 Precisely! What I have been saying, without saying those exact words. Unfortunately, the use of such words tend to put people off, as nothing than preaching. this is unfortunate, because it is so real.
Bioreflectivity stresses? Is that a thing? 👍🏼 also, aren’t trees basically carbon traps if we leaf them alone? 😂 Good stuff
😂 leaf…
I lost it. This was great
I totally agree with this episode. However pollution of land, sea and air needs to be the focal point. If only we can find environmentally friendly ways to address our daily activities.
So the colour white doesn't absorb heat, it reflects it (away).
I have always wondered if painting all the roofs of buildings white and keeping them white would have any cooling effect, and if so, how much? 🤔
Chuck Nice new that algae was the most efficient way to remove carbon and ask that question specifically after someone asked about algae farms in order to redirect it back to the most efficient way possible. Don't let Chuck Nice is Persona of an ignorant comedian fool you he is often the smartest one in the room even with Neil deGrasse Tyson in the room with him I know they're not in the same room anymore but you know what I mean
Katherine Calvin's answers were like from a politician: never straight and acknowledging the questions, but without really answering them.
please reverse the lightning round where you guys do the speeding up and allow guests like the chief NASA ......gives longer answers, I like your show
Neil and Chuck - concerning nuclear power, it does have a couple of real drawbacks: It will take more than 10 years to get one on-line just because of siting, and safety procedures that are in place for very good reasons. Also, we have not solved the waste issue - US power plants store their nuclear waste in holding tanks by the plant. Third, a nuclear power plant doesn't last forever - not the least because radiation breaks down the material in the reactor. And that gives you 100s of times more radioactive waste to deal with (low-grade, but hard to concentrate). Fifth - nuclear power plants pose great risks from both terrorists with bombs and dictatorial regimes with 'armies' of hackers. Sixth nuclear energy is more expensive than actual renewables. Seventh: uranium is not renewable, and there are limited amounts of accessible U in the world - also in places that have geo-political ramifications. I hope we have learnt from our experience with geo-political consequences of our oil addiction.
The US could actually cover it's energy needs with either solar or wind - but, of course, we should use both, *and* hydro and geothermal, etc. It is mostly a matter of political will to enact motivation in the market place - for example a revenue neutral carbon tax. We have the technology - we don't need more studies before we act!
On a massive scale, we need to "deploy, baby, deploy!!!"