I regularly search for news of Richard Alley, so thanks for doing this interview. He's like a human whiteboard animation, the way he illustrates with his hands. And so generous about his colleagues.
Great interview! I love listening to actual scientists talk about global warming rather than the many Internet cranks who have half-assed opinions that are often ill-informed. Great discussion here!
Scientific reticence is a real thing. Many scientists live in a world where the scientific method is beyond question and where the world of science rewards them with salaries, prestige and opportunity. And they speak to an audience who also believe. The few who question all this are derided as pariahs so it is lucky that we doomers have reality on our side. Soon, you too will wake up and look up.
@@donutemptycircle8717 Not sure what you’re addressing? When I said Internet cranks with half-assed opinions, I meant those who try to deny the reality of global warming from a perspective of ignorance of the scientific data that indicates it’s happening.
@@johncoviello8570 I'm addressing internet cranks with half-assed opinions who deny the reality of near-term extinction, and the reality of exponential collapse. That's mostly everybody!
@@donutemptycircle8717 I follow Guy McPherson and many others who also see collapse and NTHE coming sooner rather than later. The only hope I see is a geoengineering solution like reflective mirrors or pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to lower sun energy. But, given all the denial and humans focusing on other matters like accumulating wealth and war, I don’t see humans getting it together in time to avert the looming global warming disaster.
Surely we are already in the dangerzone, as behind Thwaites and Pine Island, in fact the whole Marie Byrd Land coast, the icecliff failure has ruptured over 100 km Inland, Into 4 km thick ice, in 2km below sealevel basement, right back to the feet of Mt Takahe and many other recently active enormous volcanos. The ice shelf no longer exists, and outburst floods are continuing through the middle of winter. You don't appear to be looking at S1 SAR radar of the interior. You are speaking as if it was three decades ago.
This is a weird physical slip tipping point (for a worst case 10 feet sea level rise) if everything goes wrong. It feels more like some action movie script tbh. By the time that shelf slips off and some more tumbles after it we probably have many more relevant climate crises elsewhere
Just a great interview 👏🏽👏🏽 loved the professor, what passion and enthusiasm he has when describing this subject. And thank you. You kept the questions flowing and asked a few that I was thinking about as I was watching and you came up with them. Got my sub btw… 👍🏽
I LOVE THIS GUY! 💞 He reminds me of the scientist on Independence Day. He's super excited, kind of nerdy but explains things so clearly. I'd love to have a dad like that 🤗
I'm trying to sort out comments by Dr. Alley and the seeming level of uncertainty about the timing of the failure of Thwaites and the shattered ice being held by it going into the ocean vs. researchers such as David Holland and Erin Pettit who are simply asserting 'inevitable total failure' "within 3-5 years." Does Dr. Alley actually agree with Holland & Pettit and simply say it "more off-handedly"? or does he disagree with them, particularly their characterization of failure in less than 5 years?
Wow! What an amazing man! He has that likeable, enthusiastic, crazy professor thing nailed😁. He certainly has high quality teaching/communication skills. It is interesting to watch how the scientific mind grapples with the data, issues and uncertainties. Excellent interview questions too. Thank you.
We are changing the climate now more than 100 times faster than when exiting glaciations. During the last deglaciation, 14,600 years ago, there was a 400 year period when sea level rose around 4 meters per century, Meltwater Pulse 1A. What in hell do we think will happen to the ocean now?
If a large volcano erupts agriculture will immediately end. We`d better be preparing for cold and growing food indoors and underground. Bye bye cows, pigs, ducks, chickens, turkeys, and wildlife.
The sooner people wise up and accept the inevitability of our near-term extinction, the sooner we can begin to psychologically adapt to our responsibility for enabling it or being unable to disable it.
@@coleorum Climate "science" is not much different from religion. They each have priests who claim they know their subject in the absence of any proof. Then they demand repentance that they are unwilling to participate in themselves - besides if you sell a good doomsday story it can become quite profitable.
Yes it's changed, we are now seeing folks belongings appearing from under receding glaciers, from the time there was no ice, and it was much warmer in that area.
My guess is that if Greenland's ice goes, it'll be so disruptive to the world's climate that "developed" nations' GDP will fall quickly and the world's economy will go into a depression that'll make the Covid downturn look like a minor speed-bump. That downturn will drop CO2 emissions that might last a generation, thus giving the Thwaites time to bulk back up.
Doubling the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere from 400 to 800 ppm would only give rise to an increase of 0.7 degrees C. Not such a big rise that we should be alarmed about nor spend trillions of dollars on to prevent.
The thing that no one has ever answered is 'how do you count melted layers?' ie where are the melted layers from the medieval warm period, Roman era and when the Sahara was green ~6-15,000 years ago? Also your presumptions that Humans are affecting total climate (we do have regional effects), don't take into account the effect of the Sun (more than just radiance - solar particles, ionisation, magnetic fields of the sun and the earth etc), which means we do not know even if we are meaningfully contributing to climate change, even if we are contributing to co2. I remember watching doom and gloom from this guest in the past and from others before him that don't seem to have affected the choices of powerful people in their coastline mansions: one presumes former Presidents etc have access to even more information than this guy does...
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that you're talking a lot of nonesense. Climatologists have taken the sun into account from the very beginning. To believe that climate scientists didn't look at the sun means believing that scientists are completely stupid. It's beyond me how anyone can believe that scientists didn't look at the influence of the sun. So let me explain to you what scientists know and how they know that CO2 is causing the warming (we also know that we're increasing the CO2 concentration, but that's another story). We can calculate and/or measure how much the sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols etc. are infulencing the energy balance of our planet. To this day there's no factor (radative forcing) that influence the energy balance of our planet more than CO2 did. Furthermore, the amount and speed of the warming fits very well with the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and all the other factors. So it really doesn't look like there's the possibility that we missed a factor that's bigger than CO2. And that's the dilemma that people with your view are facing. You have to answer a lot of questions. What is this other factor that is changing the energy balance of our planet more then CO2? Obviously that has to be proven quantitatively. Just going with feelings or guessing is no good in science. It actually has to be demonstrated that this factor has changed the energy balance of our planet more than CO2 (so more than 2W/m^2). Another problem people with your view have is that the CO2 concentration is increasing with every year. With it the radiative forcing from CO2 compared to the preindustrial period is increasing as well. So CO2 changes the energy balance of our planet more and more. 2011 the radiative forcing from CO2 what "just" 1.5W/m^2. Now with the higher concentration it's alreadying over 2W/m^2 and it keeps increasing until humanity becomes CO2 neutral. So that CO2 isn't causing global warming is becomig less plausible with every year. CO2's is already by far the biggest radiative forcing and the lead is growing with every year. That's the type of physics you have to deal with, when having a position such as yours.
@@stauffap Wow, that was a lot of typing...allow me to reciprocate No, 'scientists' have only included solar radiance in previous models, as of this year they'll be including particle forcing, but not electromagnetic coupling (that will have to wait for another paradigm shift). If you do not include all available inputs, you may mistakenly conclude that what you have included has a larger effect than it actually does ie human activity via CO2, which of course does have an effect (but only hypothetical until we ensure we have ALL the inputs, remember). Next you'll be telling me that scientists are actually the science, and to question ANYTHING/anyone is blasphemous (what we've gone through in the last two years should demonstrate that unwavering belief is dangerous) "I'd rather have questions without answers, than answers that can't be questioned" - Richard Feynman Don't forget that there is a lot of money resting on the climate change gravy train, heck, I used to believe in it myself when I was naïve. (I now watch 2007 predictions in 'Inconvenient Truth' as a comedy). Nice formulas btw...must go down well at dinner parties
@@marclawyer2789 You haven't addressed the dilemmas that you are facing with your position. So what am i supposed to conclude now? Does that mean that you didn't actually understand what i explained to you? Or do you understand very well, but chose to change the subject, because you know very well, that you don't have a factor, which has changed the earths energy balance as much as CO2? It also seems like you think that i don't actually know what i'm talking about. Apparently you think that i'm just repeatng things that i've heard somewhere, but that i do not really understand. You couldn't be more wrong. The simple fact that makes your position so irrational is in order to warm a planet that planet needs to receive and absorb more energy then it loses into space. That's just simple physics that you can't really escape, because it's so simple. And as i've explained already, we know by how much CO2 has changed the energy balance of our planet (about 2W/m^2). You still haven't named a factor that comes close to 2W/m^2 and if you can't do that then CO2 remains the main reason for the observed warming by far. You also haven't addressed the fact that the observed warming fits pretty well to the radiative forcings we already know about. Maybe you've missed this, but again: it's implausible to think that we're missing a factor that is even bigger than CO2. Because then we'd observe a much faster warming. Do you get that? You know, the stuff you claim all makes sense as long as you don't know any physics and aren't doing calculations with the known laws of physics. But as soon as you understand and use physics your position falls apart. Which tells me that either you don't know anywhere near enough physics or that you know enough physics but haven't actually used it in regards to man-made global warming.
@@marclawyer2789 If that's "a lot of typing" to you then you really aren't used to writing, which is another clue that you're not an academic i.e. far from being an expert at this. I'm probably dealing with a typical "youtube expert".
@@stauffap Lord Kelvin was an 'expert' and declared that all useful knowledge had been discovered and that all that was left was 'details around the edges'...he also gave a talk to the Australian Physics Association that heavier than air flight was impossible, with formulas to prove it: that was 1895. I don't have to prove anything to you, that will happen in time as the new models get closer to replicating the reality we live in and we realise that the Sun is the main driver of the Solar system and that Galactic 'energies' also play their part (especially as the Sun's magnetic field weakens - Cosmic rays intrude more: see effects on Pluto and progressively the outer planets) I do not profess to be an 'expert', neither do I wish to be one, as with that mantle comes the heavy expectation of 'paradigm', within which only certain thinking is allowed or you lose your job/funding, as has happened to those who criticise Human Induced Climate change. The same thing happened recently with COVID-19, or did you miss the Doctors in China who 'disappeared' or died, the professors/doctors who were fired/pilloried in the MSM...? All of this happened under the watch of fellow scientists and 'professional' journalists, who put computer models out as facts, again and again, to push a narrative that turned out to be false: we'll all die without masks, lockdowns, PCR tests (that don't work - see Carey Mullis the guy who invented the process), and 'vaccines' (that aren't actually vaccines, they changed the dictionary definition to allow them to 'lawfully' claim it), all whilst the Pharma companies have GLOBAL immunity from ANY recourse for the severe side effects that ARE happening (see VAERS, yellow card analysis). These same companies are also responsible for huge malpractice in the past, with the largest fines in history levied against them. The one thing I do believe, that overlaps your position, is that we should consume less, recycle as much as possible and transfer to new technologies (Solar roofs, home batteries, efficient mass transportation etc). As I said, I did once believe as you do now, but the evidence is going against your position (Humans are 'dirty' polluters and there needs to be less of them...) And yes, this is a lot of typing when you do it on a phone...have a great day and take care. I look forward to your dismissal of my 'position', and also my character, with bated breath.
every research paper Ive read since 2013 points in the same direction: the consensus is significant sea level rise will happen due to Greenland and Antarctica melting, but this research area is new. it may be a slow rise but it will be unstoppable. Yes Its like the movie Dont Look Up: it is coming, but the rate and scope is a matter of great uncertainty because we dont have enough data, its a new field.
I regularly search for news of Richard Alley, so thanks for doing this interview. He's like a human whiteboard animation, the way he illustrates with his hands. And so generous about his colleagues.
Great interview! I love listening to actual scientists talk about global warming rather than the many Internet cranks who have half-assed opinions that are often ill-informed. Great discussion here!
My thought exactly guy!!!
Scientific reticence is a real thing. Many scientists live in a world where the scientific method is beyond question and where the world of science rewards them with salaries, prestige and opportunity. And they speak to an audience who also believe. The few who question all this are derided as pariahs so it is lucky that we doomers have reality on our side. Soon, you too will wake up and look up.
@@donutemptycircle8717 Not sure what you’re addressing? When I said Internet cranks with half-assed opinions, I meant those who try to deny the reality of global warming from a perspective of ignorance of the scientific data that indicates it’s happening.
@@johncoviello8570 I'm addressing internet cranks with half-assed opinions who deny the reality of near-term extinction, and the reality of exponential collapse. That's mostly everybody!
@@donutemptycircle8717 I follow Guy McPherson and many others who also see collapse and NTHE coming sooner rather than later. The only hope I see is a geoengineering solution like reflective mirrors or pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to lower sun energy. But, given all the denial and humans focusing on other matters like accumulating wealth and war, I don’t see humans getting it together in time to avert the looming global warming disaster.
Thank you!!
Dr. Richard Alley is one of my all time favourite scientist
he is always so cheerful :)
Surely we are already in the dangerzone, as behind Thwaites and Pine Island, in fact the whole Marie Byrd Land coast, the icecliff failure has ruptured over 100 km Inland,
Into 4 km thick ice, in 2km below sealevel basement, right back to the feet of Mt Takahe and many other recently active enormous volcanos.
The ice shelf no longer exists, and outburst floods are continuing through the middle of winter.
You don't appear to be looking at S1 SAR radar of the interior.
You are speaking as if it was three decades ago.
Not heard of your scenario since
This is a weird physical slip tipping point (for a worst case 10 feet sea level rise) if everything goes wrong. It feels more like some action movie script tbh. By the time that shelf slips off and some more tumbles after it we probably have many more relevant climate crises elsewhere
Just a great interview 👏🏽👏🏽 loved the professor, what passion and enthusiasm he has when describing this subject. And thank you. You kept the questions flowing and asked a few that I was thinking about as I was watching and you came up with them. Got my sub btw… 👍🏽
I LOVE THIS GUY! 💞
He reminds me of the scientist on Independence Day. He's super excited, kind of nerdy but explains things so clearly. I'd love to have a dad like that 🤗
Incredible guest. May I recommend having 'Paul Beckwith' on. He has a RUclips channel under the same name. Keep up the great work.
He's one of the best scientists to convey concepts to the public because he is such a good teacher. He uses apt analogies.
I'm trying to sort out comments by Dr. Alley and the seeming level of uncertainty about the timing of the failure of Thwaites and the shattered ice being held by it going into the ocean vs. researchers such as David Holland and Erin Pettit who are simply asserting 'inevitable total failure' "within 3-5 years." Does Dr. Alley actually agree with Holland & Pettit and simply say it "more off-handedly"? or does he disagree with them, particularly their characterization of failure in less than 5 years?
They'll adjust their doomsday predictions in a few years so no worries haha
@@PavelDatsyuk-ui4qvindeed would be 1-3 of that 3-5 years left
Wow! What an amazing man! He has that likeable, enthusiastic, crazy professor thing nailed😁. He certainly has high quality teaching/communication skills. It is interesting to watch how the scientific mind grapples with the data, issues and uncertainties.
Excellent interview questions too.
Thank you.
Thank you for uploading and sharing.
He understands the roles of Science and of Policymaking and not blurring them
Dr. Alley is always so enthusiastic about his field of study , he makes climate disaster almost a fun experience ... almost :-)
Did this guy voice the scientist in the Simpsons?
Its his second job.
We are changing the climate now more than 100 times faster than when exiting glaciations.
During the last deglaciation, 14,600 years ago, there was a 400 year period when sea level rose around 4 meters per century, Meltwater Pulse 1A.
What in hell do we think will happen to the ocean now?
If a large volcano erupts agriculture will immediately end. We`d better be preparing for cold and growing food indoors and underground. Bye bye cows, pigs, ducks, chickens, turkeys, and wildlife.
Watch out for Thwaites Glacier... going going gone!
@grindupBakerbeginning in 22nd, 23rd century
@@petersimmons3654Ice Shelf has to go first
The sooner people wise up and accept the inevitability of our near-term extinction, the sooner we can begin to psychologically adapt to our responsibility for enabling it or being unable to disable it.
We need to decommission nuclear power stations and generally leave the place clean and tidy as possible , no need for despair , plenty to do !.
Does anyone remember when scientists wanted to melt the polar ice in the 1970s to stop the imminent ice age they predicted for over a decade? I do.
See videos by potholer54 if you really want an answer
Potholer is less mendacious than some but he registers
70s faux ice age was weak solar cycle plus peak anthropogenic sulfur pulse
What's the opinion of Richard Lindzens perspective on climate change?
You obviously know his opinion on climate change so why ask? Physics is in charge no matter which scientists give you what you want to believe.
@@coleorum Climate "science" is not much different from religion. They each have priests who claim they know their subject in the absence of any proof. Then they demand repentance that they are unwilling to participate in themselves - besides if you sell a good doomsday story it can become quite profitable.
@@brucefrykman8295agreed. I was surprised the physics was never settled
Yes it's changed, we are now seeing folks belongings appearing from under receding glaciers, from the time there was no ice, and it was much warmer in that area.
Check out Dr. Richard Alleys' video, "Earth: The Operators' Manual, 2011 version, program 1" on RUclips.
My guess is that if Greenland's ice goes, it'll be so disruptive to the world's climate that "developed" nations' GDP will fall quickly and the world's economy will go into a depression that'll make the Covid downturn look like a minor speed-bump. That downturn will drop CO2 emissions that might last a generation, thus giving the Thwaites time to bulk back up.
Topographically unlikely to 'go' in a quick way.
GL added ice mass in 2024. Smile more ☺
23:00 📢
Doubling the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere from 400 to 800 ppm would only give rise to an increase of 0.7 degrees C. Not such a big rise that we should be alarmed about nor spend trillions of dollars on to prevent.
Source please?
We already have an increase of 1.7 degrees C this year.
@@drlindberg1refers to the physics of co2 without any feedbacks
Can we consider abrupt population reduction. Because that's what it's going to take
I vote against whoever you vote for
The thing that no one has ever answered is 'how do you count melted layers?' ie where are the melted layers from the medieval warm period, Roman era and when the Sahara was green ~6-15,000 years ago?
Also your presumptions that Humans are affecting total climate (we do have regional effects), don't take into account the effect of the Sun (more than just radiance - solar particles, ionisation, magnetic fields of the sun and the earth etc), which means we do not know even if we are meaningfully contributing to climate change, even if we are contributing to co2.
I remember watching doom and gloom from this guest in the past and from others before him that don't seem to have affected the choices of powerful people in their coastline mansions: one presumes former Presidents etc have access to even more information than this guy does...
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that you're talking a lot of nonesense. Climatologists have taken the sun into account from the very beginning. To believe that climate scientists didn't look at the sun means believing that scientists are completely stupid. It's beyond me how anyone can believe that scientists didn't look at the influence of the sun.
So let me explain to you what scientists know and how they know that CO2 is causing the warming (we also know that we're increasing the CO2 concentration, but that's another story). We can calculate and/or measure how much the sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols etc. are infulencing the energy balance of our planet. To this day there's no factor (radative forcing) that influence the energy balance of our planet more than CO2 did. Furthermore, the amount and speed of the warming fits very well with the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and all the other factors. So it really doesn't look like there's the possibility that we missed a factor that's bigger than CO2.
And that's the dilemma that people with your view are facing. You have to answer a lot of questions. What is this other factor that is changing the energy balance of our planet more then CO2? Obviously that has to be proven quantitatively. Just going with feelings or guessing is no good in science. It actually has to be demonstrated that this factor has changed the energy balance of our planet more than CO2 (so more than 2W/m^2).
Another problem people with your view have is that the CO2 concentration is increasing with every year. With it the radiative forcing from CO2 compared to the preindustrial period is increasing as well. So CO2 changes the energy balance of our planet more and more. 2011 the radiative forcing from CO2 what "just" 1.5W/m^2. Now with the higher concentration it's alreadying over 2W/m^2 and it keeps increasing until humanity becomes CO2 neutral. So that CO2 isn't causing global warming is becomig less plausible with every year. CO2's is already by far the biggest radiative forcing and the lead is growing with every year. That's the type of physics you have to deal with, when having a position such as yours.
@@stauffap
Wow, that was a lot of typing...allow me to reciprocate
No, 'scientists' have only included solar radiance in previous models, as of this year they'll be including particle forcing, but not electromagnetic coupling (that will have to wait for another paradigm shift).
If you do not include all available inputs, you may mistakenly conclude that what you have included has a larger effect than it actually does ie human activity via CO2, which of course does have an effect (but only hypothetical until we ensure we have ALL the inputs, remember).
Next you'll be telling me that scientists are actually the science, and to question ANYTHING/anyone is blasphemous (what we've gone through in the last two years should demonstrate that unwavering belief is dangerous)
"I'd rather have questions without answers, than answers that can't be questioned" - Richard Feynman
Don't forget that there is a lot of money resting on the climate change gravy train, heck, I used to believe in it myself when I was naïve. (I now watch 2007 predictions in 'Inconvenient Truth' as a comedy).
Nice formulas btw...must go down well at dinner parties
@@marclawyer2789
You haven't addressed the dilemmas that you are facing with your position. So what am i supposed to conclude now? Does that mean that you didn't actually understand what i explained to you? Or do you understand very well, but chose to change the subject, because you know very well, that you don't have a factor, which has changed the earths energy balance as much as CO2?
It also seems like you think that i don't actually know what i'm talking about. Apparently you think that i'm just repeatng things that i've heard somewhere, but that i do not really understand. You couldn't be more wrong.
The simple fact that makes your position so irrational is in order to warm a planet that planet needs to receive and absorb more energy then it loses into space. That's just simple physics that you can't really escape, because it's so simple. And as i've explained already, we know by how much CO2 has changed the energy balance of our planet (about 2W/m^2). You still haven't named a factor that comes close to 2W/m^2 and if you can't do that then CO2 remains the main reason for the observed warming by far.
You also haven't addressed the fact that the observed warming fits pretty well to the radiative forcings we already know about. Maybe you've missed this, but again: it's implausible to think that we're missing a factor that is even bigger than CO2. Because then we'd observe a much faster warming. Do you get that?
You know, the stuff you claim all makes sense as long as you don't know any physics and aren't doing calculations with the known laws of physics. But as soon as you understand and use physics your position falls apart. Which tells me that either you don't know anywhere near enough physics or that you know enough physics but haven't actually used it in regards to man-made global warming.
@@marclawyer2789
If that's "a lot of typing" to you then you really aren't used to writing, which is another clue that you're not an academic i.e. far from being an expert at this. I'm probably dealing with a typical "youtube expert".
@@stauffap
Lord Kelvin was an 'expert' and declared that all useful knowledge had been discovered and that all that was left was 'details around the edges'...he also gave a talk to the Australian Physics Association that heavier than air flight was impossible, with formulas to prove it: that was 1895.
I don't have to prove anything to you, that will happen in time as the new models get closer to replicating the reality we live in and we realise that the Sun is the main driver of the Solar system and that Galactic 'energies' also play their part (especially as the Sun's magnetic field weakens - Cosmic rays intrude more: see effects on Pluto and progressively the outer planets)
I do not profess to be an 'expert', neither do I wish to be one, as with that mantle comes the heavy expectation of 'paradigm', within which only certain thinking is allowed or you lose your job/funding, as has happened to those who criticise Human Induced Climate change. The same thing happened recently with COVID-19, or did you miss the Doctors in China who 'disappeared' or died, the professors/doctors who were fired/pilloried in the MSM...? All of this happened under the watch of fellow scientists and 'professional' journalists, who put computer models out as facts, again and again, to push a narrative that turned out to be false: we'll all die without masks, lockdowns, PCR tests (that don't work - see Carey Mullis the guy who invented the process), and 'vaccines' (that aren't actually vaccines, they changed the dictionary definition to allow them to 'lawfully' claim it), all whilst the Pharma companies have GLOBAL immunity from ANY recourse for the severe side effects that ARE happening (see VAERS, yellow card analysis). These same companies are also responsible for huge malpractice in the past, with the largest fines in history levied against them.
The one thing I do believe, that overlaps your position, is that we should consume less, recycle as much as possible and transfer to new technologies (Solar roofs, home batteries, efficient mass transportation etc).
As I said, I did once believe as you do now, but the evidence is going against your position (Humans are 'dirty' polluters and there needs to be less of them...) And yes, this is a lot of typing when you do it on a phone...have a great day and take care. I look forward to your dismissal of my 'position', and also my character, with bated breath.
I like the info but I honestly can't stand to listen to this guy's constant giggling every time he tries to utter something.
every research paper Ive read since 2013 points in the same direction: the consensus is significant sea level rise will happen due to Greenland and Antarctica melting, but this research area is new. it may be a slow rise but it will be unstoppable. Yes Its like the movie Dont Look Up: it is coming, but the rate and scope is a matter of great uncertainty because we dont have enough data, its a new field.
No advances in 2y
Uncle Arthur Bewitched. 1960s.