Just Thinking on Climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)


Just Thinking on Climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)

(last update 30 Nov 2016 23.48 +1UTC)

From businessinsider.com, Lindsay Dodgson Nov. 17, 2016.

Stephen Hawking: Humans have only about 1,000 years left

Stephen Hawking: Humans have only about 1,000 years left

businessinsider.com Our days on Earth are numbered.

“During a talk at the Oxford Union debating society this week, the renowned theoretical physicist said humanity probably had only about 1,000 years left before going extinct. “

Just thinking

This kind of phrases raise always a very lively debate and discussion about how much of it can be true and how much is just playing with sensationalism.

What nobody seems to realise is that in those kind of general assessments, he is referring to those humans with access to resources. This assessment talks about the last survivors. As the resources become less available the more elitist will become humanity. If 1000 years are left for those enjoying privileges, money, status… the question is how long would last the other percentage…

Just make a simple statistical analysis. Take life expectancy differences by poverty level, social status, education, economic stability, health care access, … and rest the proportional difference to 1000 years so you can see how long will be the life expectancy for “our” populations.

 

Every time I see the argument “Climate Change was something that occurred before humans existed and that carbon dioxide actually benefits humans, animals and nature in general” it really makes me wonder, what is the conversation about?

There is nothing unnatural in having the climate changing, all types of climate are natural as much as those in Venus or Jupiter. And the CO2 conc is nothing that it will make the Earth explode or nothing like that. The question in here is if we, as specie, are fit to cope with this change based on only one strategy for survival, which is implanted through consuming resources in a none returnable cycle, transforming all those forms of life support we need from natural sources: Air, water, soil, food, space,… because many species have perished through time of changing climates, others were pushed to survive in reduced locations.

For me some question encapsulate many points,

  • can we go through a climate change?
  • And then, what can we do about it?

In the 90’s, when I was studying my Masters in Environmental Biology, there were new developments arising making the settle science which we were studying a matter of an exciting challenge.

Two concepts were becoming very alive for me: – science is a dynamic environment vs static.

Uncertainty plays a role which comes with the nature of the scientists and his interpretation of what he sees. What is settled for some, in a moment in time, might become obsolete by the new contribution of a different scientist, but also,

– that what we were studying as independent parts; the alive geology of our planet, the oceans, the living forms and their kingdoms, and the atmosphere, are all involved in a chain reaction which was captured by the theory of the Butterfly effect.

Both concepts are required to be adopted in any systemic way of looking into environmental developments. There is nothing innocuous in our environmental system, everything which exists, just by its mere existence sustains, promotes, feeds, allows or inhibits processes.

The human attitude towards nature is that we can domesticate nature as if nature needs to be domesticated to survive. When in fact, we, as specie, are the one who has grown and evolved thanks to the state of nature before we even appeared in this planet.

This attitude has to change if we want to change the course of our history, and science and scientists have to learn forms to engage with the rest of society in order to make this change a common goal. Those who call themselves outsiders, or inadequate to understand what science is talking about play a role in this change as important as the scientist affiliated to the highest institution, because the reality of our own evolution is relying on all members of our society despite education or social status.

It is not that every member of our society “has to be educated enough to understand science. But science has to be able to spark the curiosity required to be willing to learn the simplicity and usefulness of knowing.

Every year the UN runs a poll which surveys people’s greatest concerns across the world.

un-poll-i-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Climate change comes the last priority in a world in which just to survive is difficult enough.

un-poll-iii-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Only by implementing and supporting the process of learning as well as integrating in our societies the use and applications of knowledge to solve situations and achieve goals, will make possible a tangible change in the inertia of our evolution.

un-poll-ii-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdOne thing calls my attention in this poll. Nigeria has the majority of votes by a number which is enormous when compared with the rest of the other western countries. So I wonder. If in order to participate in this poll each vote represents a computer and paying for access to internet, do those votes from Nigeria mean the differences in number of people capable of paying for a computer and access to internet when compared with the other countries?, really?

Furthermore, if you don´t have the capacity to pay for food, health care, electricity, or to buy a computer and pay for access to internet, would you really have as a priority to be worried for any type of climate?

Being honest, to have as “a priority” being worried for a question designed to be dealt with by “renowned scientists” and “politicians” (not everybody’s opinion has the same value), or as a mere hobby in blogs (like this one?), chats and discussions,  is a privilege which has to be taken with humble pride by those whom can enjoy not to have other more urgent and personal priorities.

There is one interpretation that I make from this poll.

The positions of Politicians and Scientists in our societies are defined to address different responsibilities in their duties. The order for the most demanded priorities and responsibilities are aimed to duties to be adopted by politicians. And just climate change is a responsibility which could be addressed to scientists.

So it seems that the priorities in our societies demand political changes urgently. I only hope that with those we could also find some improvement in those issues driving the scientific input over climatic developments.

(last update 30 Nov 2016 23.48 +1UTC)

_______________________________________________

Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Filling in, Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

Atmospheric Thermal Conductance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)


Atmospheric Thermal Conductance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)

8_14-nov-2016-water-solid-tendency-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

 

nh-thermal-conductance-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Compromise

Everybody has to make compromises accordingly with its professional and personal situation.

In climatic developments this is as much evident as in any other scenario. But by keeping the whole scientific community compromising on their professional safety no break through will keep up with the actual pace over the present developments.

The Arctic has given to us a hint over something going on. And I feel that the developments occurring in front of our eyes are moving faster that the courage to discuss the possibilities which they represent.

I have discussed such situation previously

The scope of Environmental Science and scientific thought. From Thought-driven to Data-driven, from Critical Thinking to Data Management. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

What if, the relevant bit lies hidden on identifying the pattern behind similarities instead of trying to match anomalies? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

For some years already I have made an effort carrying out research as an independent researcher. Those on my network have been either invited or actively willing to be part of my journey. I always wanted to be surrounded by people with a critical mindset able to judge and share. I am not someone to believe in but to engage and share. For that reason I try to contrast my assessments with developments and others opinions. And that is an advantage for others listening. But you have to judge by yourself the value of my work where ever you see it.

Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Since I am offering my assessments as independent researcher I feel that I should not compromise the reality of what those indicate despite of risking apathy. If there is a time to think out of the box this is the time. So I will offer you my share over the present situation and you judge it.

There are phases which I have not been brave enough to talk about it because, if I move to far in speed or space, from an audience, either I might expose myself too much becoming an entertainment commodity, or I might see it in somebody else’s publication as I have seen already with no repercussion or what so ever. With the increase of water vapour in the atmosphere there is an increase in mass moving around the globe with an inertia. And I believe that such mass, and its potential energy will affect the axis. But that is part of a chain of events. First the compartmentalization of the atmosphere will suffer, breaking barriers in altitude and latitude. Once those compartments start to equalize in pressure and composition, I don´t know what will be next since the homogenization of the atmosphere will allow erratic patterns in weather events and heat displacements as well as cold ones.

_______________________________________________

Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Influence of Continentality, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)


Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption. Half Full/Half Empty. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic (Snow and Ice Data Center, 2 Nov 2016)

After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.

Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption.

The Arctic Amplification theory defends that the ice cover missing is due to a “massive heat release in/by the Arctic into the atmosphere”.

Based on my research, the ice cover missing is not due to a “massive heat release to the atmosphere (Arctic Amplification)” but due to an introduction of heat from mid-latitudes. The Arctic snow and ice cover is lower on its rate of recovery from summer, so there is not a melt down releasing heat. The absence of “solid water” comes from the heat being transferred by intrusions of warm air. These warm intrusions are reducing the differential in energy gradients between oceanic water and atmosphere so there is not enough contrast to grow ice or to form enough snow. Since the heat can only be contained and transferred by matter, the atmosphere in the arctic containing the heat shows to carry moist from midLat instead of being dry air from Arctic circulation, and it is having an effect below its position (reducing Arctic ice cover and warming up oceanic temperatures) as well as above it, inducing the weak polar vortex.

gfs-t2_anom-2016-nov-04-init-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

In short what I am trying to highlight is the fact that the Arctic is a half full/half empty scenario. But we have to remember that cold is the absence of heat.

The process of thinking described by the Arctic Amplification theory comes from assuming that there is an increase of heat being released by/in the Arctic.

Based on my previous research presented in this blog, I disagree with that.

The thermal energy accumulated through summer in the Arctic can not be transferred into the atmosphere if this atmosphere is Arctic Dry Air as it used to be. The heat contained by Arctic masses of air comes with the air mass in itself due to the moisture carried from Mid Laitudes. Since there is thermal heat within the mass of air, the heat absorbed by the Arctic oceans can not be transferred into the atmosphere and freeze in the process. Therefore there is a reduction in Ice/Snow cover. But also affects the stability of the Polar Vortex from the bottom up.

The weather outlook linked to this process would be the following:

“The door of the Arctic freezer is not closed properly. In other words, the Polar Jet Stream is too weak to keep the Arctic isolated from Mid-Latitude intrusions. With such weak Polar Jet Stream configuration we are going to get “frost” all over the place. For as long as warm air gets into the Arctic the air already there will get pushed out.”

Half Empty /Half full

It has been a matter of previous discussions, in the line of research presented in this blog, to assess the differences between the concept of Arctic Amplification and my approach proposing the effects and dynamics behind considering Arctic Absorption.

From the publication: Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

Published on February 10, 2015

What I propose with my hypothesis are the mechanisms inducing to Arctic Amplification as a side effect of a wider principle. That it is a symptom and not a causation.

What I am trying to highlight in my theory are the possible mechanisms which would explain: changes in albedo which support Arctic Amplification, early snowfalls in central Asia, Arctic ice cover meltdown and oceanic increases in salinity and ultimately, the origin of atmospheric blocking patterns and the pause in T raise unified in single principle: Increasing conc. of CO2 and water vapour induce a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in the global atmospheric circulation, not only the Arctic.

From: When Temperature Becomes Something Else (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Posted on

The most common parameter applied to talk about climate is Temperature, and yet, that is not the same when we talk about weather. But, are both so distant one from each other that it can make any sense adopting such discrepancies?

Such assessment might sound too extreme among many however, it seems to be the case of that Temperature is assumed to be the responsible driver behind of all events concerning our atmosphere but, what would happens when temperature becomes something else and  something else becomes temperature? Where should we focus our attention?

Through my research I have tried to point out the relevance of adopting a different approach towards understanding atmospheric developments from focusing our attention over temperature as a parameter on its own. Even though variations in temperature are the easiest to determine in the first instance, those also deviate our attention from addressing what temperature really means: where does it comes from and where does it go when we can not longer measure it?

One example, we can look at ENSO as half empty/half full scenario. Either we can look at how powerful are El Niño / la Niña or, how much power it is required to generate those conditions. The implications and interpretations derived are quite different.

What does it mean that temperature drops? If we know that temperature is just an expression of energy, and that energy does not disappear, where is that energy going? Out space?And then, when temperature raises, where is that energy coming from? Is it getting colder some other place in order to generate such increase in a different location?

But again, why temperature has to be the answer? What would happens when temperature becomes something else and  something else becomes temperature?

I have tried to avoid this weakness in the approach that I apply to study climatic developments through my research since 2014. In my last publication Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

It will take that some relevant names get to publish in relevant journals something really relevant in order to find a common ground between disciplines and scientists, but at the moment, using temperature as the focus point, it feels like we are chasing a tail. Because if studying temperature requires for some people to wait 30 years “under the weather”, maybe, we should change the approach and take a closer look at what is that it makes the weather. Because Temperature is just one expression of the energy being carried within the atmosphere, altogether with, wind, electricity and gravimetric volumes of water delivering precipitation.

 

From: Settled Science (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.).

Posted on

If we consider that a butterfly can have an effect over atmospheric circulation we have to consider also the effect from any other substantial action including not only derived from industrial activities but also, from implementing policies. In comparison with the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings, what kind of feedback should we expect from effect of the wings on just one single wind turbine with an enormous proportional size?, or the effect of releasing ground surfaces from the interference of trees in the atmospheric circulation…?,

And we can keep asking about the introduction of vast amounts of new components in the atmosphere from anthropogenic activity, and the alteration of solid structures due to urbanization, mining and waste treatment, Water cycles due to pollution and compartmentalization…

Basically, I believe that the lack of understanding the basics in science is what has left us to arrive to this point in time and degradation in our environments. Applying same lack of understanding into creating “innovative solutions” will not take us far from where we are heading already if those solutions carry the same “basic” mistakes as those previously applied.

One particular point of unsettled science highlighted in my research is the opposite directionality interpreted over the Arctic Amplification theory. Arctic Amplification defends that the increase in temperature at Arctic latitudes is amplifying the effect from a global warming over mid-latitudinal circulation. My approach applies a new perspective to purpose that the atmospheric situation over the Arctic is not amplifying any process, due to its low energetic pool. Instead, the Arctic circulation is “passively” absorbing the energy carried under the influence of mid-latitudinal pressure due to hadley cell’s deformation.

Such mechanism is independent from a minor influence coming from affecting the conditions of albedo at the Arctic. In fact, albedo affects material getting radiated with the capacity to accumulate and re-emit energy. But the Arctic has an atmosphere usually dry due to its low temperatures. Therefore, the conditions of the Arctic atmosphere defining its thermal properties rely on its majority over the amount of moisture carried capable to absorb energy.

My theory is that the increasing warming over mid-latitudes is using water vapour as the carrier of energy incorporating it over the whole atmosphere and into Arctic latitudes. Such mechanism will increase the energy pool at the Arctic, what in other words can be seeing as an increase in temperature. Follow up on this theory can be found in the following publications:

The theory of Arctic amplification applies the point of view of seeing the temperatures raising in the Arctic as a “half full” scenario. However, by applying the interpretation of assuming that the Arctic is one of the locations with an atmospheric volume with the lowest energy content, we should look at it by how empty used to be, thus “half empty”.

The different interpretation between both scenarios bring into question the directionality on the triggers driving climatic and atmospheric events. Is it the Arctic affecting Mid-latitudinal circulation or is the other way around? So my approach into this question is simple: Where is the energy required to drive atmospheric circulation coming from? And the answer is held in the composition of the air that carry that which we measure as temperature. Albedo can make the ice to melt but can not warm up dry air. If the temperature at the Arctic circulation increases is because it carries a molecular composition which carries and retains energy. And since high temperatures over the Arctic melt ice and reduce albedo, there is less energy being radiated into the atmosphere so the temperature measured over the Arctic  has to come from circulation introduced by mid-latitudinal intrusions.

But that is just the beginning of a process resultant from seeing mid latitudinal circulation invading Arctic circulation due to an overload on its energy pool. All the weather events seen in the recent years and the location for those events point to corroborate my previous assessments, either directly or indirectly (also here and here). Moreover, if my take over the present developments is accurate, what comes after is what will make things interesting.

So far, the most of the feedback reactions we see put in contact masses of air moving horizontally through the atmosphere. If my assessments are correct, that will be only over a period of transition. Simultaneously, a new scape path will generate interferences over the atmospheric circulation in altitude due to energised adiabatic forcing. Such processes have already been observed and called stratospheric sudden warming events. A process which, moving from the bottom up, disturbs the configuration of the Polar Vortex.

______________________________________

(Update 17 Nov 2016 19:32 UTC+1)

From LinkedIn discussion

I know the arguments and the data presented by those articles articles presenting the Arctic Amplification theory such as

“The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification” by James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds, also “Mechanism of seasonal Arctic sea ice evolution and Arctic amplification” by Kwang-Yul Kim et al.

From the beginning of this research I have considered also papers by Cohen and colleges, and Jennifer Francis.

And, I agree with their observations but I disagree with their interpretation.

When we look at sea ice melting we can consider a transference of energy, but from where to where? Where is the energy coming from to melt ice? Albedo is energy rejected from the system so this energy does not melt ice. You can not justify a decrease in ice based on a decrease in Albedo due to a decrease in ice. Which matter is absorbing and transferring heat into the ice? Ashes immersed in the ice? warmer surrounding water? atmosphere? What happens when one volume of mass transfers heat to another? It gets colder, so the atm column is warmer in surface colder in the middle and warmer again in altitude, always in relation with its surroundings.

“Increased transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting from sea ice loss” means that sea ice is melting in a process where sea ice releases heat!!! That is against any thermodynamic coherence and understanding, despite of being in peer review articles and from recognised scientists and institutions. I am sorry but I can not agree.

I have received the following comment:

There are 2 ways less ice results in the release of heat. First between 100 and 900 meter depths there is an enormous amount of heat derived from relatively warm and dense inflowing Atlantic waters that could melt Arctic ice several times over. The removal of thick mulityear ice by freezing winds removed the insulating ice cover and released more of that subsurface heat to the atmosphere. Second after the winds removed thick ice, now more new ice forms each winter and ice formation releases latent heat as well new ice having less insulating capabilities. In accord with this theoretical ventilation of Arctic ocean heat, MIT/Harvard oceanographers recently estimated the upper 700 meters of the Arctic ocean has cooled over the past 2 decades.

And I have replied as follows:

(Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) Latent heat is released in a process of transference between substance with thermal conductivity. When the air above the water containing heat is cold and dry generates the so called “steam fog” we saw over the great lakes in 2014. The inhibition of ice and snow over the Arctic in periods of low radiation can be explained by the lack of differential in energy with its surroundings so water can not release its heat content in order to freeze. Therefore, the atmosphere is not taking the energy required for water to freeze because it contains energy already, carried by water vapour introduced from mid latitudes. That is a trend which would explain the lack of mechanisms mentioned in scientific literature linking all the atmospheric events happening all around the globe. At least that is the conclusion from my research.

I received the following comment over my answer:

I dont understand your reasoning regards the “atmosphere taking” heat. Heat simply travels from a region of higher temperatures to lower. At 80 degrees north latitude air temperatures are only above freezing for about 80 days during the summer. For about a hundred days during the winter, air temperatures are 25 to 30 degrees below freezing. The Atlantic water between 100 and 900 meters is much warmer than the air, 2 to 4 degrees above freezing, thus heat is traveling from the ocean to the atmosphere.

And I have replied the following:

Temperature is measured through an atmosphere with a molecular composition thermically active. The atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The molecular composition which absorb and retain radiation affecting climatic regimes and ice cover anomalies are GHGs (CO2) being water vapour the major component as part of a feedback with the other GHGs. Through periods of low radiation (winter) temperature drops enough (as in the Arctic should be) so the molecular composition would be mostly N and O without water vapour since it would freeze. So the atmosphere in itself looses its thermal conductance by drying out. How ever, if there is a forced increment of GHGs, like the increase in water vapour measured in the latest decades, the thermal conductance of the air increases, carrying more energy in circulation by water vapour. Being increased the pool of energy carried at the Arctic decreases the amount of energy which the atmosphere can absorb from the oceans. Water releases energy until it freezes only if it the surrounding medium can take all the energy supplied by the ocean. Otherwise it absorbs energy only up to thermal equilibrium. If this equilibrium is higher than freezing there is no ice.

My research points to an increase of the energy pool in the atmosphere carried by water vapour as consequence of transformations induced in the composition and structure of the gaseous, liquid and solid phases of our environment, from increases of CO2 in the gaseous phase, transformations in energy sinks due to land cover management in the solid phase, and alterations over water cycles due to compartmentalization, inland water losses, acidification and pollution. An increase in the energy pool of the atmosphere explains ice loss in the Arctic, ice increase (at the moment) in the Antarctic (differences in land-ocean contrasts with NH), increasing number of events related with strong winds, water downpours and snow fall, heat waves and cold displacements crossing latitudes instead of having smooth transitions through longitudes.

(End Update 17 Nov 2016 19:32 UTC+1)

8_14-nov-2016-water-solid-tendency-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

_______________________________________________

Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Air, Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Finding out, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cyclonic Alignment Towards the Arctic (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


Cyclonic Alignment Towards the Arctic (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

8-nov-2016-northward-wind-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Graphical representation of the Northward wind velocity at 10m on 8th Nov 2016. Note the alignment of the northern gusts with a tendency moving throughout latitudes towards the Arctic at the Northern Atlantic ocean.

8-nov-2016-oceans-ii-wind-cyclonic-pattern-alignment-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

8-nov-2016-oceans-wind-cyclonic-pattern-alignment-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-world-t2_anom-2016-nov-08-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-t2_anom-2016-nov-04-init-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Such pattern has been repeating in the recent years and it has been discussed in previous assessments.

From

February 10, 2015 (UPGRADED 24th March2015) Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.

_______________________________________________

Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Energy Balance, Filling in, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Climate. Too Simple To Be It (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)


Climate. Too Simple To Be It (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

(last update 8 Nov 2016 16.34 GMT+1)

When trying to get into the core of a complex matter one of the most freighting feeling comes from the challenge of not overseeing the obvious being drowned on complexity.

Science is made from learning to become aware of the existence of complexity. That is one among some of the reasons behind its opaque image for many.

There is a language made of complex terms which is applied to communicate elaborated concepts and theories. Altogether, the language, the concepts and the theories are immersed in a relentless demand for accuracy and pristine scrutiny. Ultimately, the constant pressure from the rules and demands dominating the world of “respectable science” gets into the personality of those part of this world and translates into an attitude.

As part of the innate nature of scientists there is the constant expectation for complexity behind almost everything. To such extent that it can become a real challenge having to settle for simplicity.

Climate

Seasons happen to be colder or warmer than, but now there is also the term “erratic”. Short periods of warmth followed by cold blasts with a change in frequency through the year producing a roller coaster of temperatures like those we have been feeling in the Iberian peninsula in the recent years.

Stability seems to be the key point in here. A strong Polar vortex happens when the conditions in the surrounding atmosphere are stable. That gives smooth transitions between seasons. Without stability, the Polar jet stream becomes wobbly and everything around it in latitude and altitude, giving a weak polar vortex and an erratic distribution of cold and warm masses of air in time and through space.

The door of the Arctic freezer is not closed properly. In other words, the Polar Jet stream is too weak to contain warm mid-latitude air masses from getting into Arctic circulation. Therefore, for as long as warm air gets into the Arctic the cold air already there will get pushed out. When cold dry Arctic air moves away gets in contact with wetter masses of air at lower latitudes and therefore we get snow or “frost” all over the place. And this dynamic is very simple to be understood. Maybe too simple?…

There is not even a complex question behind why warm air moves higher in latitude and altitude.

temp10-hpa-anim-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd temp50-hpa-anim-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-t2_anom-2016-nov-04-init-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Follow-up on previous assessments

ENSO

Oct 2015 Sept 2016 ENSO

The assessments which I share in my blog incorporate a level of uncertainty associated with its innovative approach and its independent nature. In order to consolidate their value under the absence of external support, I rely on contrasting my assessments with real-time developments and feedback.

Seeing present conditions over Europe, and in agreement with other previous publications in this blog discussing tele-conections and the nature of the ENSO, I want to highlight the similarities with a publication from one year earlier for the same month November, 2015.

Starts Raining Drops of Winter at Mid-Latitudes. The new Autumn? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Starts Raining Drops of Winter at Mid-Latitudes. The new Autumn? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Nov 10, 2015

diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com Starts Raining Drops of Winter at Mid-Latitudes. The new Autumn?  (by …
Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)Nov 19, 2015.

diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com ·Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) The 18th of Nov the Met Office has advised the population of UK to be prepared for a sudden change in the conditions of the

See also:

December 18, 2015 Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 3, 2016 Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Follow-up from the media

Similarities between past and present atmospheric dynamics point to a pattern which it was discussed in the publication:

“Moisture gained in the Equator getting introduced in atmospheric circulation carried by water vapour into higher latitudes incorporating more energy in atmospheric circulation in the form of latent heat.”

Such pattern shows to be found also in the present fall 2016:

gfs-world-t2_anom-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

wind-northward-8th-nov-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Graphical representation of the Northward wind velocity at 10m on 8th Nov 2016. Note the alignment of the northern gasps throughout latitudes with a tendency moving towards the Arctic through the Atlantic ocean. Such pattern was already discussed in previous assessments.

Snow in Russia.

2015. Worst snowfall in a decade blankets Omsk, Russia. Posted by Elena Ugrin on October 22, 2015. watcher.news

2016. Siberia Is Being Clobbered With Snow Already, and That Could Mean a Harsher U.S. Winter Ahead. By Jonathan Belles. Published Nov 4 2016 02:43 PM EDT weather.com

 Tornado in Italy

A Tornado last year in Venice made the news and was part of a discussion addressed in the publication:

This year, the tornado is near Rome.

Large and deadly tornado rips through Italy near Rome

Large and deadly tornado rips through Italy near Rome

watchers.newsA powerful storm accompanied by at least one very large tornado hit Italy on November 6, 201…

 

Closing remarks

Defining what is relevant to be part of mainstream news channels is already a complex matter in itself. That is why I started to publish in my blog my own perception over what I think is relevant filling in what I see as gaps of knowledge.

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.” – George S. Patton

I am just looking at the sequence of events that I have discussed through my previous publications in the last three years looking for similarities in new developments and I am finding reports, like the previous ones over Russian snow and the tornado in Italy, which support the assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog.

You can also compare choose a period of time through the year and an atmospheric event of your interest, and contrast the similarities by visiting the page containing the timeline of this blog here.

Last year I discussed the tornado in Venice due to the wobbling effect of the Jet Stream as part of my whole approach on climatic developments, in the publication “A climate between waters.” In this publication from the 8th Sept 2015, I mentioned:

“I believe that the present weather events, altogether with the tornado seen in Venice on July, represent some of the new “Drops of Weather” coming over to say that the Summer, as we know it, is coming to an end.

The reason behind it seems to be the sporadic and unpredictable behaviour of the Jet stream, which not only is wobbly in latitude, but also in the vertical profile of the atmosphere. Accordingly, we can see that when it comes to lower levels from 300hPa induces alterations in the thermodynamical behaviour of the tropospheric circulation. In turn, when this cold air touches the lower level of our atmosphere, activates the energy accumulated in the Water vapour contained in it as latent heat, delivering new forms of energy; kinetic provoking strong winds, electrostatic generating lightnings and potential carried in the mass of all the water coming from its gaseous state into liquid or solid precipitation.”

One point which I have tried to make in several discussions is the obsession for identifying differences despite of having so many events which share similarities. It does not need to be complicated to be true and neither too simple to be wrong. Everything is a matter of perspective. Many times our own limitations to understand the simplicity of things is what makes things complicated. And if you have doubts about it, you just need to talk with a child about your troubles.

What if, the relevant bit lies hidden on identifying the pattern behind similarities instead of trying to match anomalies? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) September 3, 2015

“Thunder only happens when it’s raining”. Fleetwood Mac.


Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Forecast Unusual (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


Forecast Unusual (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)

Have you realised how many times it is becoming part of a forecast the use of the word “unusual”?

In the line of research presented in this blog I have reached the conclusion of facing a change in the structure of the atmosphere and its dynamics due to an increase in atmospheric mixing in altitude and latitude between Equatorial and Mid-Latitudes with Arctic circulation.

Recently the Met office has published in their blog a forecast for the incoming winter over the UK. This is an extract from the publication:

What does this winter have in store? Posted on 3 November, 2016 by Met Office Press Office

So, what are the latest indications for the coming winter? Professor Adam Scaife, head of long-range prediction at the Met Office Hadley Centre, explains: “The risk of a cold start to winter has increased to 30% this year. Statistically, however, it is still more likely that the UK will experience a normal start to winter, but there is an increased risk of cold snaps between now and Christmas.”

Adam added: “Several factors, including tropical rainfall, are known to drive UK and European winter conditions: following a strong El Niño last year, the tropics are now influenced by a weak La Niña and unusual rainfall conditions in the Indian Ocean.”

However, prospects for winter in the UK aren’t governed solely by tropical rainfall, there are other influences too. For example, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) experienced an unprecedented flip in February and is now back to westerlies this year. And although it is not the main factor, the westerly phase of the QBO is associated with milder wetter winters. Finally, the winds high in the stratosphere, circling the Arctic – around what is known as the Polar Vortex – are disturbed and weak at the moment. Although these winds are many kilometres above the surface, they can influence the strength and position of the jet stream, and this is helping to increase the risk of cold snaps in the UK.

What it called my attention is that among all those words there is the following:

  1. it is still more likely that the UK will experience a normal start to winter, but there is an increased risk of cold snaps between now and Christmas.”
  2. following a strong El Niño last year, the tropics are now influenced by a weak La Niña and unusual rainfall conditions in the Indian Ocean.”
  3. the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) experienced an unprecedented flip in February and is now back to westerlies this year.
  4. Finally, the winds high in the stratosphere, circling the Arctic – around what is known as the Polar Vortex – are disturbed and weak at the moment. Although these winds are many kilometres above the surface, they can influence the strength and position of the jet stream, and this is helping to increase the risk of cold snaps in the UK.

Phrases which based on my previous research make me to have some questions:

1- Is it or is it not expected to be a “normal” transition into winter?

2- Is it or is it not expected to link a “normalized” link between the ENSO and the conditions at UK meanwhile there is not such a normalised link between the ENSO and the much closer Indian Ocean?

3- Seeing that the QBO has behaved in an unusual manner, how much of “usual” links between atmospheric indexes can we expect?

4- Finally, we all agree on that the winds in the stratosphere “are disturbed and weak” but  nobody has claimed that such situation has been the responsible of breaking the Polar Jet stream by a constant flow of Arctic masses of air coming down in latitude through the Atlantic. So, why is more important what it comes from the stratosphere than what it goes into the stratosphere?

gfs-world-t2_anom-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Related posts

Seasonality:

QBO

ENSO

Polar vortex

Globally


Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

 

Posted in Filling in, Polar vortex and Jet Stream | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Autumn and the NH Polar Jet Stream (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)


Autumn and the NH Polar Jet Stream (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

Through the NH Autumn period the equatorial zone of influence (ITCZ) moves to the south as well as the Polar Jet Stream come lower in latitude.

There are several implications derived from this changes. However, the state of the Polar Jet has been weak and wobbly through this decade. Having a weak Jet Stream means that the transition between seasons and its change in latitudinal location is not homogeneous in space and neither constant in time. Its erratic behaviour has increased the probability of seeing atmospheric developments which could be considered out of season due to their characteristics, their location and their timing. Atmospheric developments which sometimes are expressed in the form of thermal deviations from their geographical climatic regime (temperatures reaching higher/lower values than those expected for a specific location in an specific part of the year). But also the alterations brought by an unstable atmospheric compartmentalization is related with the developments of some type of storms.

The change in latitudinal position for the Polar Jet stream moving south over the NH American continent increases the probability of seeing low pressure developments moving from the East Pacific across the continent towards the East coast of America. Altogether such scenario increases the probability of having one of those low pressure systems colliding with warm currents from the Gulf bringing similar developments as those seen with the storms Juno or Jonas.

I think that we have arrived at this part of the year where it is time to start watching out for low pressure developments coming from the Pacific basin moving across North America.

gfs-world-pmsl-2016-oct-27-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Previous storms sharing this type of genesis were called Juno and Jonas. Therefore, I vote for the next one should be called Janet so it is kept the J-N- in the name.

Previous related publications:

January 28, 2015 The origin of the Storm “Juno” 27 Jan 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
January 20, 2016 North American Weather. Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Current atmospheric conditions

gfs-world-pwtr-2016-oct-27-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-world-prcp-tcld-pmsl-2016oct-27-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Atlantic Basin

Meanwhile, over the Atlantic basin, the weak state of the Polar Jet Stream has allowed for the development of a low pressure travelling from the Arctic towards tropical latitudes, causing floods and strong winds over the Canary Islands.

ir-25-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-world-pmsl-2016-oct-20-init-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

The atmospheric conditions shown by this low pressure development, through time and space, show to carry enough strength to move through latitudes and to have a vertical profile from surface level all way up to the Jet Stream 250 hPa.

27-oct-2016-nullschool-vertical-atlantic

Based on previous assessments published throughout the present line of research this scenario indicates that the atmosphere around this system is not able to absorb fast enough the energy contained by the system to dissipate the energy carried within.

This situation is not new and it has kept as constant in the recent years despite variations in SST or atmospheric Indexes such as NAO, AO, MJO…

2014_16-nh-atlantic-basin-vertical-profile-wind-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

In 2014 the analysis of the scenario created by the erratic behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream became a theoretical proposal offering an explanation over the mechanisms driving the atmospheric developments  observed.

Seeing how same developments repeat their configuration in space and time brings me to close a circle in the line of the research published in this blog over 170 publications addressing assessing the impact of transformations in the solid, liquid and gaseous phases of the energy flows driving our environment triggering a climatic drift.

In a nutshell I would resume my approach as follows:

The energy flows in our environment is formed by energy sources and sinks using the atmosphere as the medium through which energy is transferred  between the liquid, solid and gaseous phases of the environment. The major change identified in geological times is the constant and increasing force behind the transformation of the structure and composition of all those phases due to human activities. Such transformation has altered the sources and sinks of energy as well as it has modified the conductance properties of the mediums transferring the energy contained in the Earth system. All the modifications carried by human activity reduce the capacity of environmental energy sinks, biotic systems, as well as introduce new sources of energy from all the activities which are applied in the development of our societies and industry.

The incapacity for the environment to use energy sinks against the energy being contained in the Earth system, altogether with the increase in thermal conductance of the atmosphere due to GHGs, and the increase in albedo due to land use and cover, increases the amount of energy being transferred within the system triggering an increase in turbulence, beginning within the less dense phase of the environment, the gaseous phase or atmosphere. Such energetic imbalance jeopardise  the structural integrity of the atmospheric compartmentalization weakening the strength of those features built upon steep differences in energy gradients or thermal gradients (Jet Steams and Polar Vortex), and generating other resilient features which have no place where to dissipate their energy like blocking patterns, strong cyclonic profiles in altitude and storms able to persist in time and distances.

Ultimately, the dynamics of the atmosphere driving climatic temperatures and humid regimes in latitude and altitude would suffer an increase in the mixing ratio between masses of air otherwise kept isolated thanks to the compartmentalised nature of its previous configuration. The outcome from this evaluation points to an increase in the erratic behaviour of seasons and atmospheric dynamics. Neither global warming or global cooling being a “global trend”. Instead, the exchange of masses of air from mid-latitudes into polar latitudes will force displacements of air masses from high latitudes affecting the dynamics of the whole system without a predictive pattern other than following the thermal properties of the mediums dominating the local situation. Thus contrasts between land and oceans.

All publications addressing this line of research can be found at the page Timeline and framework.

All started with the following assessments:

October 21, 2014 New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 14, 2014 Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
February 10, 2015 (UPGRADED 24th March2015) Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.
September 14, 2016 Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
September 22, 2016 Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
October 13, 2016 Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.)

Some imagery from previous publications

You can see also more animations at the youtube channel

Circulation in Altitude 21thOct_4thNov and 15th Nov2014

3D 20th Oct15 WV N19 by Diego Fdez-Sevilla

850 hPa Temp Jan2016 Diego Fdez_Sevilla 5_5_25cs

10hPa Temp Diego Fdez-Sevilla


Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Aerobiology, Biological productivity, Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Finding out, Influence of Continentality, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Solar activity, Water vapour | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)


Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

(last update 27 Oct 2016)

I have discussed in previous publications that all the symptoms surrounding the breaking of the NH Polar Vortex point to a process being induced from the bottom up.

I believe that instead of looking at “The Influence of Arctic Amplification on Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Circulation” it should be considered the other way around. Understanding the influence of Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Circulation on Arctic circulation might be the key to understand the answer to many questions.

Different causes have been proposed by other scientists to explain the break of the polar vortex but all of them agree on that the mechanisms behind those breaking are warm masses of air moving up causing major sudden warmings.

Major stratospheric warmings have taken place, on average, every other year over the past 50 years. Since 1998 these warmings have been more frequent and earlier in the winter. Previously, major warmings typically happened in February. Over the past decade they have happened in December and January. No one knows why the number of major warmings is increasing even though some scientists have suggested variations in sea surface temperature anomalies and the active phase of the solar cycle.

In the line of research presented in this blog it has been discussed the impact over energy flows derived from solar activity, land use and surface, atmospheric composition of GHGs and aerosols as well as the water cycle.

Based on my previous observations and assessments the current state of the stratospheric circulation at both poles (25 Oct 2016) suggest that there is no need to have sudden warming process at stratospheric level in order to have a broken polar vortex. Such configuration comes from the turbulent effect triggered at lower altitudes by warm masses of air moving towards the poles in latitude and altitude. Such scenario can be seen by the configuration of the polar vortex split at the NH without a stratospheric localised strong warming meanwhile the South pole is suffering a Sudden stratospheric warming without splitting the polar vortex.

This behaviour can be explained by considering the thermal properties of the atmosphere as a system capable of carrying energy across higher latitudes and altitudes without dissipation and in enough concentration to affect the configuration of the polar vortex from the bottom up. Such capacity to keep momentum across latitudes and altitude conserving thermal energy can only be explained by an enhancement in the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which are directly related with its composition.

Throughout my line of research I suggest that there is one approach which is able to unify all events in a single principle. The incorporation of energy into the atmosphere is shaping the atmospheric dynamics we see affecting the behaviour of currents, storms, rain rates, lightning events, wind regimes and temperature variations.

The atmosphere might have trespassed a tipping point absorbing energy making to tremble its previous structural configuration in Latitude and Altitude.

The constant contact of warm masses of air from Low and Mid-Latitudes with those from polar latitudes has worn off the strength of the Polar Jet Stream. Such circumstance has allowed the intrusion of warm masses of air into higher latitudes and altitudes, increasing atmospheric turbulence. These convective intrusions are fuelled by the energy carried within water vapour, inducing the displacements  of other colder masses of air in altitude and latitude, increasing the mixing ratio between otherwise compartmentalized parts of the atmosphere.

Such circumstance has allowed the atmosphere to spread the energy carried by water vapour from mid latitudes into Polar Latitudes (Arctic latitudes), being able of holding more energy than before since it is not dissipated into their surroundings when moving across latitudes.

This scenario has induced a trans-Arctic interconnectivity between oceanic basins which has happened with and without the need for a strong sign of the ENSO. Therefore, this would suggest that exchange of masses of air between the Mid low latitudes with the Arctic, through the Polar Jet Stream, is the dominant driver in atmospheric circulation defining the behaviour of equatorial winds. But also, the configuration of the NH Polar Vortex.

All previous publications addressing those arguments can be found in the category Framework and time-line. Some relevant examples are:

2015-2016 Autumns. With and without strong ENSO Signals

tlon_heat-gif

30th Oct 2015. An intrusion of warm air into Arctic circulation displace a cold airmass into lower latitudes over the Atlantic Basin.

FRAME_OIS_RGB-airmass-westernEurope_1510301600

25th Oct 2016. An intrusion of warm air into Arctic circulation displace a cold airmass into lower latitudes over the Atlantic Basin.

Airmass RGB.

25-oct-2016-eumetsat-diego-fdez-sevilla-ph-d

23th May 2016. An intrusion of warm air into Arctic circulation displace a cold airmass into lower latitudes over the Atlantic Basin.

North Hemispheric circulation Atlantic 23 May 2016 by Diego Fdez-Sevilla

25th Oct 2016 Satellite IR image.

ir-25-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

25 Oct 2016. IR satellite composition.

Atmospheric conditions at the North Hemisphere

At the present fall, 25 Oct 2016, same patterns are being unfolded to those assessed in previous publications:

  • Warm air gets into polar circulation to a such extent that it affects its circulation in latitude and also in altitude.

The top image in the following composition shows the temp at 1000 hPa for the day 25 Oct 2016. The images below show the state of the Polar vortex for the same day (left) as a single unit. Meanwhile, the image on the right shows the Polar vortex configuration forecast for the 1st November 2016 split in two vortices. And the agreement is shown by the GFS and ECMWF models.

25-oct-2016-1000hpa-and-30hpa-temp-wind-diego-fdez-sevilla-ph-d

Configuration of Temp and Wind at 1000hPa (top), 30hPa temp and height conditions today 25 Oct 2016 (left) and the modelled projection of a broken Polar Vortex for the 1st November 2016 (right).

NOAA (GFS). Arctic Temp and Height conditions at 30hPa on the 25 Oct 2016 (left) and forecast 1st Nov 2016 (right).

   gfs-noaa-t30_nh_26-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdgfs-noaa-t30_nh_forecast-1-nov2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

   gfs-noaa-z30_nh_26-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdgfs-noaa-z30_nh_forecast-1-nov2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Nullschool. GFS animation from 25 Oct 2016.

gfs-nh-t2_anom-2016-oct-25-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdgfs-nh-pwtr-2016-oct-25-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

DWD. (ECMWF) Temp and Height conditions at 30 hPa on the 25 Oct 2016 (left) and forecast 1st Nov 2016 (right).

ecmwf-30hpa-25-oct-2016-168h-forecast-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdecmwf-30hpa-1-nov-2016-168h-forecast-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

The Forecast for H500 and SLP at the NH for the 31st Oct is shown in the following images.

h500-nh-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Sea Ice extent

arctic-sea-ice-extent-27-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

“National Snow and Ice Data Center.” Source.

Atmospheric conditions at the South Hemisphere

Previous publications in this line of research have addressed the dynamics at the South Pole:

Meanwhile the state of the Polar Vortex at the North Hemisphere seems to be suffering the impact from tropospheric dynamics, the South Polar Vortex is also going through a warming wave on its own.

gfs-noaa-t30_sh_26-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd gfs-noaa-z30_sh_26-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

gfs-sh-t2_anom-2016-oct-25-diego-fdez-sevilla-phdgfs-sh-pwtr-2016-oct-25-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

26-oct-2016-sh-10-hpa-diego-fdez-sevilla-ph-d

Sea Ice Extent at Antartica

antarctic-sea-ice-extent-27-oct-2016-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

Temperature anomalies globally

temp10-hpa-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

30-day loop of analyzed 10-hPa temperatures and anomalies. Each frame is an eleven-day mean, centered on the date indicated in the title, of 50-hPa temperature and anomalies from the NCEP Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Contour interval for temperatures is 4ºC, anomalies are indicated by shading. Anomalies are departures from the 1981-2010 daily base period means.

temp50-hpa-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

30-day loop of analyzed 50-hPa temperatures and anomalies. Each frame is an eleven-day mean, centered on the date indicated in the title, of 50-hPa temperature and anomalies from the NCEP Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Contour interval for temperatures is 4ºC, anomalies are indicated by shading. Anomalies are departures from the 1981-2010 daily base period means.

Closing Remarks

All those patterns would be fuelled by the incorporation of water vapour into an atmosphere with its thermal capacities enhanced due to an increase of GHGs and aerosols.

All the recent past and present events seem to confirm the assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog which can be found in chronological order in the category Framework and timeline at the top menu and following this link.

Animation from the previous publication Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.)

See more animations from previous publications at youtube

From the Framework and Timeline presented in the line of research published in this blog:

March 14, 2014 The breakdown of the Polar Vortex. It happened before so, What would follow? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 14, 2014 The breakdown of the Polar Vortex. It happened before so, What would follow? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 7, 2014 What type of Polar vortex configuration can we expect for this winter? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 14, 2014 Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 22, 2014 The Polar Vortex breaks again in the North Hemisphere 22 Nov 2014. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
December 18, 2015 Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
February 4, 2016 (updated 11-18 Feb2016) Polar Vortex, Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

 


Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com.

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.

Perspective

(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com). All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,  WordPress.com license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):

Posted in Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Influence of Continentality, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

(short notice) EGU conferences in Ourense -Spain 25-27th Oct 2016


This week there will be a conference in my home town Ourense-Spain organised by EGU and The University of Vigo about the Hydrological Cycle.

The ” EGU Leonardo Topical Conference Series on the Hydrological Cycle” is the forum that EGU provides for scientific discussions focused on … more here

Since I have no affiliation covering the expenses for my registration I have contacted the Organizing Committee explaining my situation as “independent” researcher asking for a reduced fee or free access just as an interested member of the public.

Sadly I have been told that my only option to attend to the conference is to pay the standard registration, 250 Euros.

Since my research has no institutional or economic support, and I am in transition between jobs, such expenses are beyond the capabilities of my current “budget”, therefore, if anyone attending at the conference wants to meet please feel free to send me a message.

email: d.fdezsevilla()at()gmail.com

Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.

Posted in Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Water vapour | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Playing Brain Games on Energy (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)


Playing Brain Games on Energy (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

Energy is a concept for which, its reference or its use, has been contained in the domains of physics and those applying mathematical expressions. It is encapsulated within margins of statistical precision and algorithms. And yet, is it necessary to be a physicist or a mathematician to talk about Energy?

I am aware of that for me to talk about energy based on simple concepts and intuition might be seen as a blasphemy, or just unworthy of any consideration for some. And yet, intuition is what led Einstein to define the existence of Energy. So, even though my skills are not built on stats and mathematics my understanding on multidisciplinary processes might be enough to translate intuition into words and concepts.

Couple of months ago I intervened in some discussions at researchgate related with the subject of Energy.

What is infinity?

My take: Infinity is the conceptualization of lacking understanding or knowledge over something occupying an “space” relative to other conceptualizations. Basically, everything we do not understand is part of infinity. Everything we understand is located in a finite “conceptual space.”

What is space for you?

Space is what lies between the limits we mark as such. Between dates there is a space of “time”. Between physical barriers there is a space which can be empty or occupied by other physical features. Between opposite concepts there is a space where to discuss towards reaching understanding. I would share another related question, is it possible for more than one feature to exist in the same portion of space?

What could be the components of space, or is it formed by nothingness?

Without being a physicist myself I will answer just because I like thinking and I like to learn from engaging in conversation sharing my ideas.

Energy as such is a concept which we know to be disguised in many different forms but I haven´t seen any attempt to identify what is that we call Energy and changes from kinetic to potential to thermal…

Something which it has been addressed is that the transference of energy through space takes different time lapses for each different expression of Energy. So, I would consider Space as a medium through which energy travels.

Actually I have come to think that space must contain a form of energy we haven´t identified yet which is conductive to energy in all the other forms. Energy from different expressions can coalescence and deliver a new format, like heat appears in a collision of two masses.

In conclusion, in order to obtain a space containing nothing we need a lot of energy, so both concepts are linked to each other. Space is made of energy, whatever energy is.

I hope I make sense.

And since I am here, I would say that time would have physical or structural properties which would be part of this concept of energy. Energy can only be understood with time, so I would say there is something where both are two components of a singular feature.

Maybe that is what it is called space-time singularities, but sometimes I like to play with the idea of considering time as a current of “a fluid” either “moved by or made by” energy in which other forms of energy, like our known universe, are floating.

Well, this is just a brain game I like to play with. Maybe I should just quit sugar and oxigen.

_____________________________________

https://i0.wp.com/quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/citylights07.jpg

The entertainer Charlie Chaplin and the scientist Albert Einstein were two of the most famous individuals of the last century.

One version of a conversation between both describes that Einstein once said, What I admire most about your art, is its universality. You do not say a word, and yet … the world understands you. It’s true“, replied Chaplin, But your fame is even greater: The world admires you, when nobody understands you.”

In a different version of the tale the two celebrities Charlie Chaplin and Albert Einstein were conversing, but only Chaplin presented the comparison between their different types of fame:

Once when Einstein was in Hollywood on a visit Chaplin drove him through the town. As the people on the sidewalks recognized two of their greatest, if very different, contemporaries, they gave them a tremendous reception which greatly astonished Einstein. “They’re cheering us both,” said Chaplin: “you because nobody understands you, and me because everybody understands me.”

More at quoteinvestigator.com

Posted in Energy Balance, Opinion | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment