On the present State of the Cryosphere Please donate at PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos joining the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem. International Cryosphere Climate Initiative iccinet.org/ State of the Cryosphere 2024 Report overview iccinet.org/statecryo24/ Link to report: drive.google.com/file/d/1CaM_sTK-lrdzlcJxA2ZBxsqkLuu9mSF-/view World Glacier Monitoring Service wgms.ch/ World Glacier Monitoring Service: glacier maps wgms.ch/products_fog_maps/ Google Earth earth.google.ca/ Perplexity.ai query: Can you reduce ocean acidification by removing CO2 from the air above the ocean? www.perplexity.ai/search/can-you-reduce-ocean-acidifica-wdRu5OfwSS.LWeWSp5OMaA Peer-reviewed scientific paper: Future decline of Antarctic Circumpolar Current due to polar ocean freshening www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.170294047.79411138?commit=9ee0c2d817dfbfb369f21e3b8c7f3f8cfda9bda4 Abstract The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the world’s strongest ocean current. This vast current system is linked to ocean overturning and is pivotal to the uptake of ocean heat and CO2. The strength of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has varied across Earth’s past climates, but the exact drivers of this change remain elusive. Ocean models have not been able to adequately resolve eddies and dense shelf water formation processes that control current strength. Here, we assess a global ocean model which resolves such processes to diagnose the impact of future thermohaline and wind conditions on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This model suggests the strength of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current will decline by up to ∼ 20% by 2050. This decline is supported by simple scaling theory, and is driven by ice shelf melting, which weakens the density gradient historically supported by surface temperature. Such a decline in transport would have critical implications for the global ocean circulation, and hence, Earth’s climate system. Link to paper PDF: d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/208917/preprint_pdf/711d8e8c2b79759037da1bdfc6457882.pdf Please donate at PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos joining the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
How do I even tell folks the world needs me wen no one can believe. I am the greatest answer. But hey u all keep skipping by like I'm talking nonsense. U will still need me next year and years after that cuz U will not fix it without me.
The advanced time needed to implement geoengineering to prevent excessive sea level rise is really needed to inform leaders so long term consequences are understood.
My biggest concern is how we are going to survive all these financial and political crises, especially the power struggle in the US. The government has really made things difficult for its citizens and we cannot just sit by and suffer the consequences of bad governance🙏...,,
We won’t, deregulation is coming, meta, musk, all social media is put together to one big propaganda and influence system…. Dystopia ahead.. the climate emergency will not be on the table the next decade, capital ends democracy and a livable planet the next 2-3 decades…
31:14 ok going to ignore these paleo tealeaves it sounds more like greenland was icefree before the interglacials came into existence, not during. Otherwise the permafrost would have blown up. 44:04 wais collapse during last interglacial, sounds unlikely too, need a bit more than a octopus. I'm still a bit confounded that nobody suggests that once permafrost starts undoing itself at an unstoppable rate that that is the end of the world. I mean they know how much carbon is on storage there. Like maybe use an atmc bmb cartoon? As far as incontestable evidence goes, glaciers have disappeared, as in a large fraction. That is directly responsible for catastrophic droughts which will result in extreme economic damage. It's predictable, when the glaciers are fully gone, very soon, that is much more dramatic than current impact. Like this alone should be enough to make an 180 right f* now.
Feeding some iron and other depleted nutrients the plankton may grow, take down some CO2, but on shallow seabed that biomass releases methane as bacteria consumes it. Methane relesed by this way makes things worse... If you need to grow something on seas, then use platforms of seaweeds on the surface of the deep ocean. By this way any falling biomass ends to deep ocean and even coming methane is used before it surfaces. Just adding nutrients gives mixed results. And we do that already in masses by our rivers via runoffs. And that causes too high consentrations with mass blooms which leads to deadly deoxygenated seabeds. Death zones have been growing rapidly.
Cognitive effects start at 500 ppm CO2, depending on sensitivity (probably related to cognitive ability, maybe Hemaecrit levels. Tried to send you an email on it. Failed to go through. Look up "continual exposure to 500 ppm levels of CO2" It's that continual exposure, that's important. We're a long way from the pre-industrial of 280 ppm.
Someone needs to design a globat map identifying glaciers by country throughout the world, not cities.I would love the ease of spinning around these critical regions since most of us are unfamilar with all the regions Paul discussed in this video. I don't tune in always, yet I'm concerned and interested. Thank you, Paul. You are keeping your followers informed and awake. The GLOBE PROJECT could possibly attract partners for you? IHNI. (I have no idea) But there must be others like me, only with wealth, that could be interested. JASOL -- just a silly old lady.
I'm 60 My son is 30 My grandchild is 2. *To not affect the live of my son -* The effects of climate change and species extinction should be moderate for the next 50 years - my son is 80 then. _"moderate for the next 50 years"_ Really???? Add the geopolitical turmoil with great economic risks and a clear tendency for full scale hybrid war - > Might be tomorrow, no?
Me, 67 my wife also 1 son 40 with 3 children (7/10/13) 1 daughter 34 with 3 children (5/10/15) and when I look at tomorrow it reminds me of a 48 years old song 🎶🎵 from Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi 'The Next President' Da data are always a 🔮 but some visions are more clear than others
2c threshold is 450ppm CO2. Now at 425 and 5ppm increase per year and accelerating, 5 years is max. Wonder what body of ice will still be around at 2c over preindustrial level.
when the ESAS "abrupt eruption" kicks in then the methane goes way up - and the Clouds Tipping Point is already kicking in as the clouds are evaporating, reducing the Aerosol Masking Effect. So methane is probably much higher. I think arctic-news is claiming 800 ppm CO2 equivalent already. It has to do with the time period that the methane is calculated. So I think standard science assumes a 10 year minimum which then cuts down the PPM equivalent of methane. But the arctic ice doesn't melt on a ten year cycle - so that's super stupid to assume a 10 year minimum for methane. And then when the arctic ice is gone - everything will double again. So volume and extent are at record lows again - another sign the ESAS methane is accelerating into the atmosphere. Algae is the future of life on Earth since Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 per year.
We got a bit more time due to warming of the oceans. About 15 yrs to 2C crossing. Trump 2.0 is assured that we will get there. And we keep on worst case scenario emissions, so 3-5C is easily grasped before 2100... Waiting for Copernicus announcement for 2024... Will it be 1.6C? Anyways our way of life is killing us all. And the greediest ones are still worsening the situation.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I was giving the the 100 year estimate for methane (20 x CO2) which is obviously a ploy to lower the real figure. Using the 20 year estimate you get .6 gigatons x 85 =50 gt/yr CO2eqivalent which would amount to 520ppm CO2 equivalent from methane alone. Add that to 425ppm and you have 965ppm CO2equivalent. Still it seems to me if that were the case we would not be here to discuss this.
@@centuriesofblood The methane has a different rate of exchange into co2 based on where it is in the atmosphere I think - I am no expert. We know the arctic is heating up 4 times faster than the rest of the planet. So I'm pretty sure the accelerating rate of change will become increasingly obviously with the arctic as the leverage for the amplification. So until the arctic has the "abrupt eruption" then people will be fooled into thinking the rate of change is much slower. Peter Wadhams and others got dismissed for using a linear rate for the arctic without considering negative feedbacks from snow, etc. But while Wadhams may not have been precise, Wadhams was accurate and that's more important.
Winter fire raging in LA. Expect to see winter fires become the norm worldwide. When the peat bogs light up all year round in an AI world, go watch Blade Runner the first movie. Thats your future.
Energy is global warming in and of itself. Every watt of energy creates thermal warming. No free lunch. It is always the total amount of energy versus the amount that Earth's energy sinks can neutral without damage. Beyond that and our situation deteriorates.
And, keep your pets away from any fog, and don't let them eat snow. Reports of pet and livestock deaths coming in. Just to be safe. Some pollution got into the atmosphere, and it's bad.
@@abody499 What---pollution doesn't travel around with the air?? So glad, all that Canadian smoke I inhaled, was a figment of my imagination. Warnings went out, by EBS to cell phones, so I guess they didn't really detect the particulates in the fog, that they said they did. Soooo glad, it's all my foggy imagination---and nobody's pet died, and nobody developed coughing after breathing in smelly fog for hour after hour. So glad, that you know everything about everything. That sounds like you are a god. Lucky you.
I'm sorry Paul, but did you catch the report, a year and a half ago, that we're already seeing changes not expected for another 80 years? It's already 2100. Yields in Fields, should be a bumper sticker. That's what CC is about.
"Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). It is from a paper entitled "Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019". They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019. Also, as the mass gain (661Gt) was given, you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high.
This paper you are citing is not the nail in the coffin that you are making it out to be--if you are trying to disprove everything being said in Paul's message. In the paper by Andreasen et al, they are measuring area and extrapolating from there--if I skim read the paper correctly. Measuring area is meaningless for what we are discussing, and actually care about in this case, is sea level rise. What matters in this regard is the actual change in mass, which NASA clearly shows a steady decrease averaging 147 gigatons/year.
@alanjacobson5850 Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is about 90Gt/yr (Otosaka et al, 2023). It's total mass is 24,380,000 Gt (24380000000000000 tons), so it loses less than 0.0004% of its mass annually, which I think you could reasonably round down to zero. It contributes 0.36mm to sea-level rise per year (that's essentially nothing as well). At the current rate it will take well over ¼ million years to melt, but we are due for two more glacial periods in that time. That ice is here to stay.
@@OldScientist suspecting melting at the current rate to persist is ridiculous. In Fig. 4 of Otosaka‘s report you can see a continuous acceleration of melting rates during a global temperature rise to 1.2 deg. above preindustrial levels. If any this acceleration is going to increase with further global warming.
Sweet holy jeebus Paul, no one needs hour + long video to sleep through, could you try to summarize all that in like 10 to 15 minutes cuz otherwise this is boring as s***. No wonder hardly anyone watches your stuff
@@PaulHBeckwith for the lazy impatient people Paul could summarize the main most important points and make a 2 min short. This might reach a lot more people.
On the present State of the Cryosphere
Please donate at PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos joining the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
International Cryosphere Climate Initiative
iccinet.org/
State of the Cryosphere 2024
Report overview
iccinet.org/statecryo24/
Link to report:
drive.google.com/file/d/1CaM_sTK-lrdzlcJxA2ZBxsqkLuu9mSF-/view
World Glacier Monitoring Service
wgms.ch/
World Glacier Monitoring Service: glacier maps
wgms.ch/products_fog_maps/
Google Earth
earth.google.ca/
Perplexity.ai query:
Can you reduce ocean acidification by removing CO2 from the air above the ocean?
www.perplexity.ai/search/can-you-reduce-ocean-acidifica-wdRu5OfwSS.LWeWSp5OMaA
Peer-reviewed scientific paper:
Future decline of Antarctic Circumpolar Current due to polar ocean freshening
www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/essoar.170294047.79411138?commit=9ee0c2d817dfbfb369f21e3b8c7f3f8cfda9bda4
Abstract
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the world’s strongest ocean current. This vast current system is linked to ocean overturning and is pivotal to the uptake of ocean heat and CO2. The strength of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has varied across Earth’s past climates, but the exact drivers of this change remain elusive. Ocean models have not been able to adequately resolve eddies and dense shelf water formation processes that control current strength. Here, we assess a global ocean model which resolves such processes to diagnose the impact of future thermohaline and wind conditions on the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This model suggests the strength of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current will decline by up to ∼ 20% by 2050. This decline is supported by simple scaling theory, and is driven by ice shelf melting, which weakens the density gradient historically supported by surface temperature. Such a decline in transport would have critical implications for the global ocean circulation, and hence, Earth’s climate system.
Link to paper PDF:
d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/208917/preprint_pdf/711d8e8c2b79759037da1bdfc6457882.pdf
Please donate at PaulBeckwith.net to support my research and videos joining the dots on abrupt climate system mayhem.
How do I even tell folks the world needs me wen no one can believe.
I am the greatest answer.
But hey u all keep skipping by like I'm talking nonsense.
U will still need me next year and years after that cuz U will not fix it without me.
@@johnbaxter189 So says the Orange Jesus.
The advanced time needed to implement geoengineering to prevent excessive sea level rise is really needed to inform leaders so long term consequences are understood.
My biggest concern is how we are going to survive all these financial and political crises, especially the power struggle in the US. The government has really made things difficult for its citizens and we cannot just sit by and suffer the consequences of bad governance🙏...,,
@@marynegrete758= SPAM
@zarwalikhan8263 = SPAM & SCAM - ONE PERSON STARTS THE CONVERSATION AND OTHER PEOPLE CHIME IN TO MAKE IT LOOK REAL AND RELEVANT BUT IT'S A SCAM.
We won’t, deregulation is coming, meta, musk, all social media is put together to one big propaganda and influence system…. Dystopia ahead.. the climate emergency will not be on the table the next decade, capital ends democracy and a livable planet the next 2-3 decades…
@@niquezavala4427 SPAM & CRYPTO SCAMMER!
@@niquezavala4427 @niquezavala4427 SPAM & CRYPTO SCAMMER!
31:14 ok going to ignore these paleo tealeaves it sounds more like greenland was icefree before the interglacials came into existence, not during. Otherwise the permafrost would have blown up.
44:04 wais collapse during last interglacial, sounds unlikely too, need a bit more than a octopus.
I'm still a bit confounded that nobody suggests that once permafrost starts undoing itself at an unstoppable rate that that is the end of the world. I mean they know how much carbon is on storage there. Like maybe use an atmc bmb cartoon?
As far as incontestable evidence goes, glaciers have disappeared, as in a large fraction. That is directly responsible for catastrophic droughts which will result in extreme economic damage. It's predictable, when the glaciers are fully gone, very soon, that is much more dramatic than current impact. Like this alone should be enough to make an 180 right f* now.
I made it to the end lol. Thanks Paul.
Hi Paul. 💚
If you "gently" fertilized the ocean, promoting plant growth---would that directly lower the CO2 levels (and acidity) in local areas of the ocean?
Given known currents, that fertilizer would spread, without transport by artificial means.
Gently, is the key. Insolation levels also important. Test and fertilize.
After a while, it would lower CO2 in the air above, wouldn't it?
IIRC that has been trialed already. Mixed results.
On human timescales it doesn't sound like enough.
Be honest, ain't gonna happen what with war, both land based and resource, i wouldn't hold your breath...
Feeding some iron and other depleted nutrients the plankton may grow, take down some CO2, but on shallow seabed that biomass releases methane as bacteria consumes it. Methane relesed by this way makes things worse... If you need to grow something on seas, then use platforms of seaweeds on the surface of the deep ocean. By this way any falling biomass ends to deep ocean and even coming methane is used before it surfaces.
Just adding nutrients gives mixed results. And we do that already in masses by our rivers via runoffs. And that causes too high consentrations with mass blooms which leads to deadly deoxygenated seabeds. Death zones have been growing rapidly.
MUST GO FASTER!
Especially since OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR
That 6.9m sea level rise by 2300 got me. That was funny.
Cognitive effects start at 500 ppm CO2, depending on sensitivity (probably related to cognitive ability, maybe Hemaecrit levels. Tried to send you an email on it. Failed to go through. Look up "continual exposure to 500 ppm levels of CO2" It's that continual exposure, that's important.
We're a long way from the pre-industrial of 280 ppm.
Paul. that 'Tidal pumping' is exactly the kind of mechanism I am afraid might help defeat clathrate ability to self cool when melting.
Someone needs to design a globat map identifying glaciers by country throughout the world, not cities.I would love the ease of spinning around these critical regions since most of us are unfamilar with all the regions Paul discussed in this video. I don't tune in always, yet I'm concerned and interested. Thank you, Paul. You are keeping your followers informed and awake. The GLOBE PROJECT could possibly attract partners for you? IHNI. (I have no idea) But there must be others like me, only with wealth, that could be interested. JASOL -- just a silly old lady.
Toss in Perma regions and we could spin around and locate the regions under discussion. This could enhance viewer interest significanttly.
Are we aware of what we are doing to our grandchildren?
No, we aren’t. As it shows.
I'm 60
My son is 30
My grandchild is 2.
*To not affect the live of my son -*
The effects of climate change and species extinction should be moderate for the next 50 years - my son is 80 then.
_"moderate for the next 50 years"_ Really????
Add the geopolitical turmoil with great economic risks and a clear tendency for full scale hybrid war - > Might be tomorrow, no?
Me, 67 my wife also
1 son 40 with 3 children (7/10/13)
1 daughter 34 with 3 children (5/10/15)
and when I look at tomorrow
it reminds me of a 48 years old song 🎶🎵 from
Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi
'The Next President'
Da data are always a 🔮
but some visions are more clear than others
2c threshold is 450ppm CO2. Now at 425 and 5ppm increase per year and accelerating, 5 years is max. Wonder what body of ice will still be around at 2c over preindustrial level.
425 CO2 + another 130ppm methane CO2 ghg equivalent= 555 CO2 equivalent,
when the ESAS "abrupt eruption" kicks in then the methane goes way up - and the Clouds Tipping Point is already kicking in as the clouds are evaporating, reducing the Aerosol Masking Effect. So methane is probably much higher. I think arctic-news is claiming 800 ppm CO2 equivalent already. It has to do with the time period that the methane is calculated. So I think standard science assumes a 10 year minimum which then cuts down the PPM equivalent of methane. But the arctic ice doesn't melt on a ten year cycle - so that's super stupid to assume a 10 year minimum for methane. And then when the arctic ice is gone - everything will double again. So volume and extent are at record lows again - another sign the ESAS methane is accelerating into the atmosphere.
Algae is the future of life on Earth since Algae can sequester 100 gigatons of CO2 per year.
We got a bit more time due to warming of the oceans. About 15 yrs to 2C crossing. Trump 2.0 is assured that we will get there. And we keep on worst case scenario emissions, so 3-5C is easily grasped before 2100...
Waiting for Copernicus announcement for 2024... Will it be 1.6C?
Anyways our way of life is killing us all. And the greediest ones are still worsening the situation.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I was giving the the 100 year estimate for methane (20 x CO2) which is obviously a ploy to lower the real figure. Using the 20 year estimate you get .6 gigatons x 85 =50 gt/yr CO2eqivalent which would amount to 520ppm CO2 equivalent from methane alone. Add that to 425ppm and you have 965ppm CO2equivalent. Still it seems to me if that were the case we would not be here to discuss this.
@@centuriesofblood The methane has a different rate of exchange into co2 based on where it is in the atmosphere I think - I am no expert. We know the arctic is heating up 4 times faster than the rest of the planet. So I'm pretty sure the accelerating rate of change will become increasingly obviously with the arctic as the leverage for the amplification. So until the arctic has the "abrupt eruption" then people will be fooled into thinking the rate of change is much slower. Peter Wadhams and others got dismissed for using a linear rate for the arctic without considering negative feedbacks from snow, etc. But while Wadhams may not have been precise, Wadhams was accurate and that's more important.
Winter fire raging in LA. Expect to see winter fires become the norm worldwide. When the peat bogs light up all year round in an AI world, go watch Blade Runner the first movie. Thats your future.
Hi Paul, everyone, random question: whose "law" is it that it doesn't matter if we make new sources of energy, we will keep using all the old ones?
Jevons Paradox...
Energy is global warming in and of itself. Every watt of energy creates thermal warming. No free lunch. It is always the total amount of energy versus the amount that Earth's energy sinks can neutral without damage. Beyond that and our situation deteriorates.
@@russtaylor2122no
@@russtaylor2122 Thank you!
Bundle up, Paul. The Arctic forgot where it's supposed to be. Brrrrr
And, keep your pets away from any fog, and don't let them eat snow. Reports of pet and livestock deaths coming in. Just to be safe.
Some pollution got into the atmosphere, and it's bad.
i went the extra step and got myself a nice hat made from tinfoil.
it knows where it should be, it's just going for a sightseeing tour of places it used to only hear about 😊
@@abody499 What---pollution doesn't travel around with the air?? So glad, all that Canadian smoke I inhaled, was a figment of my imagination.
Warnings went out, by EBS to cell phones, so I guess they didn't really detect the particulates in the fog, that they said they did.
Soooo glad, it's all my foggy imagination---and nobody's pet died, and nobody developed coughing after breathing in smelly fog for hour after hour.
So glad, that you know everything about everything. That sounds like you are a god. Lucky you.
canadian smoke sounds great
I'm sorry Paul, but did you catch the report, a year and a half ago, that we're already seeing changes not expected for another 80 years?
It's already 2100.
Yields in Fields, should be a bumper sticker. That's what CC is about.
Climate change science is hardly worth following anymore. I just look around. Easy.
I read that Earth's albedo is going down?
"Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). It is from a paper entitled "Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019". They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019. Also, as the mass gain (661Gt) was given, you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high.
Do you know what an ice shelf is? If they're growing in volume it's not likely a good sign!
The model referred to in the video requires the melting of ice shelves. This isn't happening.
This paper you are citing is not the nail in the coffin that you are making it out to be--if you are trying to disprove everything being said in Paul's message.
In the paper by Andreasen et al, they are measuring area and extrapolating from there--if I skim read the paper correctly. Measuring area is meaningless for what we are discussing, and actually care about in this case, is sea level rise. What matters in this regard is the actual change in mass, which NASA clearly shows a steady decrease averaging 147 gigatons/year.
@alanjacobson5850 Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is about 90Gt/yr (Otosaka et al, 2023). It's total mass is 24,380,000 Gt (24380000000000000 tons), so it loses less than 0.0004% of its mass annually, which I think you could reasonably round down to zero. It contributes 0.36mm to sea-level rise per year (that's essentially nothing as well). At the current rate it will take well over ¼ million years to melt, but we are due for two more glacial periods in that time. That ice is here to stay.
@@OldScientist suspecting melting at the current rate to persist is ridiculous. In Fig. 4 of Otosaka‘s report you can see a continuous acceleration of melting rates during a global temperature rise to 1.2 deg. above preindustrial levels. If any this acceleration is going to increase with further global warming.
Maybe people should learn how to pick up their garbage before they tackle the glaciers. There's 10 tonnes of trash and human waste around Everest.
6:53 I like this region a lot
[text at 18:20] 10 meters? can already feel the infrastructure sweating 🫠
58:10 😂😂😂😂😂
FYI: Your thumbnail image for this video showed up as blank non-image.
It’s ok now. After a video is posted it takes a few minutes for UA-cam to have it appear.
@@PaulHBeckwith Now I feel like an internet fiend. Thanks for your dedication.
"Mountain Jews"..... what? Cream Soda? Oy.
Sweet holy jeebus Paul, no one needs hour + long video to sleep through, could you try to summarize all that in like 10 to 15 minutes cuz otherwise this is boring as s***. No wonder hardly anyone watches your stuff
It is actually a very detailed report, chock full of important information.
Either read it in 8 hours or watch my video and save yourself 7 hours!!!
@@PaulHBeckwith for the lazy impatient people Paul could summarize the main most important points and make a 2 min short. This might reach a lot more people.