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


(Upgraded 24th March 2015) Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

(Citation. Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation”. Blog “Filling in or Finding out”. http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com and DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1
2015-04-20 T 12:07:52 UTC)

This one represents just a piece of a whole pilot study which is what my blog has become in a year. A pilot study exploring all components playing a part in the debate about the Earth’s natural resilience and the potential impact of human development as a specie capable of destabilizing a planetary ecosystem. That means, from biotic and nonbiotic components, to even considering the role played by perception and cultural cognition driving the debate. Some time ago I intervened in a discussion proposing, from a hypothetical approach to the subject on human impact versus environmental change, to look at a case scenario study giving answer to four questions: Could humans alter the ecosystem at global scale? What would have to do humans to alter the ecosystem at global scale? Which part of the ecosystem (soil, atmosphere, light and heat (from our sun), water or living organisms) would reflect primary the impact from human perturbation? In case the answer is “yes” to the first question, how much of the answer for the second and third questions matches with actual facts? As job seeker, I am not in a position to undertake such endeavour applying the full time load required without economic support. And yet, my researcher’s nature has made me believe that, even with limited resources, I can use my skills to try making a contribution through my blog and, maybe, stand out from the crowd attracting the attention to find the human and economic support need it.

We have seen biological species being introduced in ecosystems on which their development without restriction has triggered alterations in the whole ecosystem. And therefore laws have been implemented across many countries trying to control the development of such scenarios.

The development of the human specie has reached such scenario. There is no natural pressure restricting its development but the limitation of the planet’s resources in itself. So yes, I believe that its development without restriction can alter the planetary ecosystem. In order to have the kind of impact required to alter an ecosystem “at planetary scale” it would have to come in the form of a highly “movable” factor, easy to be incorporated and spread in the natural planetary system, and capable of keeping a “constant” effect over the ecosystem’s sensitivity independently of natural oscillations. And that it could well be played by the role of introducing CO2 in the atmosphere at a constant rate. I don´t see the debate about if the impact can happen. I see the debate about how is it going to develop the evolution of possible scenarios under the constant interference over the Earth’s natural resilience by having anthropogenic interference becoming increasingly participant in primordial aspects of our ecosystem. What we see in our planet as natural oscillations I see them as the pendulum movement resultant from moving energy from one state to another. If you introduce or take energy from the system, the cycle will change. And CO2 is key here.

After a year applying my own perception to analyse and discuss the synergistic nature of environmental factors I managed to develop and propose a theory trying to find common ground to explain the cause leading to Arctic amplification, blocking patterns associated to deep cyclonic events, a pause in atmospheric T raise, increase in kinetic energy dispersed over the whole hemisphere, water flash floods and prominent snow fall.

What is new in this theory when compared with Arctic Amplification?

The theory of Arctic Amplification has introduced the consideration of feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds due to changes in the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—often cited as the main contributor.

The theory that I have developed follows the work published previously by scientists  Judah CohenMasato Mori, Colin Summerhayes, Coumou and Ted Shepherd, whom all together supported the theory of that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Arctic ice to melt. Decreased snow cover decreases albedo and enhance heat absorption. Ultimately, the enhanced capacity of the Arctic to absorb heat would lead to “amplify” atmospheric heat absorption already being fuelled with GHGs. Such increase in atmospheric temperature would reduce the thermal contrast required for a strong jet stream and consequently originating disturbance in atmospheric weather patterns associated.

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.

I am looking at the implications of having the global circulation absorbing constant increases in atm CO2 inducing Water vapour to be spread over the global atmospheric circulation. In my approach, instead of looking at what happens in the Arctic as the origin of a chain reaction, I look at what happens in the Arctic just as a side effect (with its own implications) of a more wide process resultant from a reduction between the differential  gradients of energy driving compartmentalization and weather patterns in the global atmospheric circulation, being water vapour the carrier of the energy being homogeneously dispersed all over the atmosphere.

In order to expose this theory to public review by a multidisciplinary audience I have shared it in several groups at LinkeIn but also I have sent few emails asking for feedback to relevant scientists in the field.

My query was simple, I just would like to have feedback on the assessment that I presented in these two posts presenting my arguments:

Posts explaining the theory “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in Atmospheric Circulation”.

On 17th of December 2014, Jennifer Francis sent her answer to me (in full here):

The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research. It is an exciting and active new direction in research, though, so I encourage you to pursue it. To get funding or a job in this field, however, will require a deeper understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics (not just suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence), and statements supported by published (or your own) analysis.

Based on her advice I decided to look into some data and revisit the accuracy of my theory when confronted with data sets and observations.

Revisiting the state of atmospheric circulation.

In short terms, it discusses the possible consequences of increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 being the trigger which would induce an increase in atmospheric Water Vapour. Since Water vapour is the principal carrier of energy in its many different forms: kinetic, potential and latent heat, this energy would be dispersed in the atmosphere increasing the atmospheric energy budget. Consequently, reducing the differential gradient of energy between cyclonic events, Jet Streams (Polar and Sub-Tropical) and their surroundings. The energy accumulated in those cyclonic events would not dissipate easily creating blocking patterns and competing with the Jet Stream for position in Latitude and Longitude.

Anomalies

The differential thermal contrast between Polar and subtropical regions creates a barrier, or Jet Stream, separating both parts of the atmospheric circulation. The influence of CO2, increasing the heat absorption capacity of the atmosphere, would be amplified at Subtropical regions due to the synergistic relation with other GHG, Water Vapour, which is less abundant at latitudes with low temperatures. This situation would be contained momentarily by the barrier generated from such thermal contrast between both areas, Sub-tropical and Polar, in a feedback loop accumulating heat absorption by constant release of CO2 and increasing concentrations of Water vapour.

However, this scenario of constant contact of one side of the Jet stream with the other, and the global circulation in altitude, slowly but steady it would wear off the differential thermal contrast between regions weakening the strength of the Jet Stream barrier.

Comparing the differences in annual mean content of Water in the atmosphere between two periods of 12 years comprehending recent dates (2000-2012) and past periods (1960-1972 and 1980-1992), in both cases the results show an increase in the amount of water contained at the North Hemisphere towards the Arctic Pole.

water-column-arctic_annual-difference-2000-12_1960-72 DiegoFdezSevilla_wordpress water-column-annual-difference-2000-12_1980-92 DiegoFdezsevilla_wordpress

Similar anomalies are found when comparing the actual atmospheric temperature (5th March 2015) with the mean from previous records.

Temp Anomaly GFS-025deg_WORLD-CED_T2_anom

With the weakening of the Jet Stream, the volume of space to be occupied by warm air would expand into the Polar regions. Accordingly, highs associated with the subsidence of the Hadley cell move several degrees of latitude toward the poles even before the summer heat arrives (see following image on Pressure at Mean Sea Level 5th and 6th March 2015).

Pressure 6 March 2015 GFS-025deg_WORLD-CED_PMSLJet stream GFS-025deg_WORLD-CED_WS250

5 March NH Sea Level Pressure Winds 700hPa DiegoFdez-Sevilla

The expansion would allow for the atmosphere to keep absorbing energy through GHGs without increasing its temperature globally whereas increasing atmospheric pressure at higher latitudes.

ECMWF Pressure anomalyThat could explain the “pause” in global Temperature raise and yet, why it has not dropped. The weakening of the Jet Stream would allow more frequent intrusions of masses of air from both sides, inducing sudden and extreme changes in weather patterns for Northern and Southern latitudes. Once the barrier weakens, “warm and wet” currents of air would reach further North being dragged by High pressures moving at higher latitudes without the opposition of the Jet Stream.

Temp Anomaly GFS-025deg_WORLD-CED_T2_anom

Observations

The weather events observed at the current time show relevant features in the atmospheric circulation dictating the weather at the North Hemisphere. Such features agree with the theory which I proposed in previous posts suggesting the mechanisms which would  explain the development of present and future climatic events based on an increase in the atmospheric energy budget making more difficult the dissipation of the energy contained in cyclonic events and weakening the Polar Jet Stream.

The most significant features indicating the potential validity of this theory are:

  • The formation of deep and resilient cyclonic events holding enough energy to affect atmospheric circulation from Surface level all the way up to Jet Stream level (250 hPa).

Circulation in Altitude 21thOct_4thNov and 15th Nov2014

Since October, there has been a deep H in the Atlantic sea (taking from 1000 hPa to 250 hPa and higher) which has played a big impact over the Jet Stream circulation, dividing it in two. This impact over the Jet Stream from the High pressure in the middle of the Atlantic continues now Feb 2015. Another H tilting from west to central Pacific, together with the blocking H in California, have been very resilient features. But also, systems of Low pressure have been generated frequently taking from 1000 hPa up to 250 hPa over the central North Pacific Ocean, strong enough to interfere with the Jet Stream and resilient enough to create blocking patterns influencing meteorological conditions across North America.

Circulation in Altitude 19 Jan 2015

Atlantic and Pacific atmospheric circulation 19th Jan 2015. Conditions of Wind Speed and Direction and Mean Pressure at sea level. Data NOAA & Nullschool.

10 Feb 2015 Wind Surf_250 hPa_Pressure by DiegoFdezSevilla

Arctic view for the NH State of atmospheric circulation 10th Feb 2015. Conditions of Wind Speed and Direction at 1000 hPa (left), Jet Stream level (centre) and Mean Pressure at sea level (right) for the 10th Feb 2015. Data NOAA & Nullschool. Worthy to mention the Low pressure over the North Pacific and the High Pressure over UK.

Pacific Atm circulation North Pacific by Diego Fdez-Sevilla

Pacific atmospheric circulation 11th Feb 2015. Conditions of Wind Speed and Direction, Total Precipitable Water and Mean Pressure at sea level. Data NOAA & Nullschool.

Pacific Atm circulation Jet Stream polar vortex North Pacific by Diego Fdez-Sevilla

NH atmospheric circulation 11th Feb 2015. Conditions of Wind Speed and Direction and Temperature at 250 Hpa (Jet Stream) and 10 hPa (Polar Vortex) level. Data NOAA & Nullschool.

  • 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.

Notice that the most predominant entrance of water vapour into high latitudes happens in the North Atlantic.

10 Feb 2015 TPW Surf_by DiegoFdezSevilla

Actual state of atmospheric circulation for wind direction and Total Precipitable Water in the atmospheric column today 10th Feb 2015. Data NOAA & Nullschool.

5 march 2015 NCEP_NCAR ECMWF ERA_Interim

Post Water vapor 11 March 2015

Water vapor 11 March 2015Persistent patterns in atmospheric circulation carrying water vapour in the NH Pacific have repeated similar to those from last year’s winter:  2014 Feb and Oct. 2015 Nov, Dec, Feb and March.

Surface Wind TPW DiegoFdezSevilla 1000hPa Wind TPW DiegoFdezSevilla Similarities-in-total-precipitable-water-and-weather-patterns-at-the-north-pacific-6Nov-22Dec-2014-image-taken-by-diego-fdez-sevilla-from-nullchool-net

  • An increase in the energy been contained in the atmosphere would lead to a decrease in the differential energy gradients between atmospheric surroundings and weather systems. Ultimately, weather systems would not dissipate easily their energy into the surrounding atmosphere. You can find a more in depth discussion here and here.In such scenario, how much would it be affected the probability of seeing same climatic events (Low and High pressures) happening at same locations in the Hemisphere but in different days?What would it be the probability of seeing “two Low pressure events” happening at the same time, in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “two different days” separated by 8 months? Sure it is not such a big deal, just curious.
    2 events 2014 to 2015 700hPa T NH

    “Two Low pressure events” happening at the same time, in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “two different days” separated by 8 months. T and Wind direction at 700 hPa 4th Feb 2014 and 8th Oct 2014.

    And then, what would it be the probability of seeing “two Low pressure events” happening at the same time in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “three different days” separated by 8th months and 3 months? And the probability of seeing “three Low pressure events” happening at the same time, in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “two different days” separated by 3 months?

    2014 to 2015 700hPa T NH

    “Two Low pressure events” happening at the same time, in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “three different days” separated by 8 months and 3 months. T and Wind direction at 700 hPa 4th Feb 2014, 8th Oct 2014 and 14th Jan 2015. “Three Low pressure events” happening at the same time in same locations of the North Hemisphere in “two different days” separated by 3 months. T and Wind direction at 700 hPa 8th Oct 2014 and 14th Jan 2015.

The implications of such scenario in present and future meteorological forecast and climatic variations is yet a complex matter to analyse (more posts on this topic: here and here). However, the possibility of having atmospheric blocking patterns being broken suddenly by intrusions of masses of air inducing extreme changes in meteorological variables might affect the life cycle of plants, which react following changes on Temp and Humidity due to induced hormonal changes, as well as animals for which their behaviour and physical features change seasonally. Just to begin with.

Closing remarks

Two forms of energy have being constantly increasing in the atmosphere, without oscillations, CO2 as a Greenhouse gas absorbing heat and Water Vapour adding latent heat and mass. Those forms of energy are linked with adiabatic processes inducing transformations from one form of energy to another. From absorbed heat by CO2 and Water vapour into Kinetic Energy and from water mass into Potential Energy, rain fall, hail and snow. All this energy being introduced in the atmosphere might not change the Climate but pretty well might change weather systems, and therefore, weather patterns.

If in the last year’s winter 2013/14 we discussed how the Polar vortex configuration could induce changes in the lower Jet Stream and weather events, at this moment, based on observation (see related posts) I am considering worthy of discussion the possibility of facing a bottom up chain of events. That is, the Jet stream steadiness gets wobbly due to the interaction of atmospheric systems resultant of adiabatic processes strong enough to divert and even split the Jet stream path. That would induce instability in the base of the Polar vortex which in turn it would break into more than a single vortex. Using the imagination, it would be a pattern of vortexes following the configuration of a root from the bottom up. More splits at the base would increase the number of junctions found high in the atmosphere.

NOAA and Nullschool data have agreed showing two Vortex at 10 hPa and 70 hPa throughout several periods of short time (few days) throughout this Winter so far (see post). Has this short tendency for the Polar vortex to stay broken at 10 hPa made any difference in the behaviour of the Jet Stream from what we have seen last Winter? My guess is not. The stability of the Polar Vortex configuration and the steadiness of the Jet Stream have shown already to be very weak.

Such scenario makes me think that the strength of the Polar vortex could reflect atmospheric conditions being built from the bottom up and not the other way around. With such consideration the factors affecting the behaviour of the Jet Stream, and weather events associated, would come from processes being happening below the Polar vortex, allowing to generate strong L and H systems. (Feedback and Thoughts on this are welcome.)

Altogether it makes me wonder, Where are those systems taking the energy from so they can compete with the Jet Stream for space in the atmosphere?

In a different post addressing “the answer to everything” I said something I deeply believe: “Lets hope that the environmental dynamics that we consider to be predictable throughout our models do not surprise us with unexpected behaviours under new unprecedented conditions.”

(Update 24 March 2015)

The Praise of Acknowledgement.

If you wonder why I don´t simply take this study into a Journal for Scientific Publication: Peer review publications undergo a process which relies on the standards of the Journal and the peers chosen to validate its publication. Normally take 2 peers and the editor to agree before publication. After the paper gets published the discussion about its value for the whole scientific community begins. In my approach, I would like to discuss first, before thinking about getting it published. In such way, it becomes an open review involving more than just two peers. I believe that this approach has the potential of giving to this theory a meaning representing more than just the individual pride of having a publication in my cv.

But, does a contribution to the state of knowledge have to be peer reviewed by a scientic journal to be acknowledged? Are not scientists in the field qualified enough to undertake their own independet evaluation over an idea to recognise and acknowledge its contribution?

However, even though this is not a publication in a peer review journal, does not mean that the value of its content, and the work behind it, has not reached the standards required to become a contribution in the state of knowledge worthy of being acknowledged if found appropriate. Acknowledgement is the only form of input that ultimately will help me to find institutional support to keep active my career as researcher.

Meanwhile having limited access to previously published papers might be seen as a restriction to conduct high standard research, it also can be seen as an opportunity to confront, generate and apply lines of reasoning free from unconsciously repeating patterns of thinking, unsettled assumptions and dogmas. I believe in that allowing myself to adopt my own conclusions without knowledge on all and every previous paper published gives strength to my approach. Any scientist working in this discipline knows how to judge the contribution of my work in the state of knowledge and I count on their ethical standards so the use of any content or outcome being generated based on it will acknowledge my contribution.

Based on my efforts for contrasting the accuracy of this theory I have sent several messages to different scientists searching for feedback. One of those scientists has been Jennifer Francis to whom I have to be, initially, grateful for her attention.

On December 2, 2014, I sent her an email asking for feedback about my theory assessing global atmospheric circulation.

On December 17, 2014, I was very grateful for having her answer:

“On this particular topic, I would suggest reading the recent review paper that I’ve attached, which includes an extensive bibliography of relevant papers. (from the mentioned review paper:

  • How that signal propagates out of the Arctic to mid-latitudes differs and can be loosely grouped under three broad dynamical frameworks: (1) changes in storm tracks mainly in the North Atlantic sector; (2) changes in the characteristics of the jet stream; and (3) regional changes in the tropospheric circulation that trigger anomalous planetary wave configurations.
  • The theory that Arctic amplification is resulting in a slower zonal jet, increased meridional flow, amplified waves and more persistent extreme weather has received a lot of attention from the media, policymakers and climate scientists. In part due to the high profile, this hypothesis has been scrutinized in the scientific literature more extensively than other hypotheses linking Arctic climate change to mid-latitude weather. However, it is worth noting that other studies on related topics, especially other observational studies, share some of the same shortcomings: lack of statistical significance, causality unclear, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and so on))

(email continues) The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research. It is an exciting and active new direction in research, though, so I encourage you to pursue it. To get funding or a job in this field, however, will require a deeper understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics (not just suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence), and statements supported by published (or your own) analysis.”

Francis communication

Answer Email from Jennifer Francis, Dec 2014.

On December 24, 2014, I sent her my reply, which represents the final one since it has not been further communication:

“I just want to thank you for giving me a chance and read my ideas. What I wrote was after reading that Cohen proposed that early snowfall over asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosfere provoking Artic ice to melt and create heat absortion leading to jet stream weakening due to Artic Amplification in atm heat absortion. I believe that all of that is a consequence and not the trigger. That is a symptom and not the cause. My theory tries to eind common ground to explain the cause leading to artic amplification, blocking patterns asociated to deep cyclonic events, a pause in atmospheric T raise, increase in kinetic energy dispersed over the whole hemisphere, water flash floods, as well as frequent  trans-equatorial circulation between hemispheres at jet stream level. I will try to find data to support my theory and I am open to reconsider all my assumptions. That’s why I really appreciate your input.”

I can only be grateful for her time and opinion, however, I want to be thoughtful and prevent misunderstandings for the new times to come.

(If you haven’t read the two other posts addressing the development of this theory I would encourage you to do it in order to fully understand the next section. here and here.)

After having consulted the state of knowledge through many posts in this blog about atmospheric circulation and the implications of CO2 forcing over it, I proposed a theory which addressed a new line of thinking based on thermodynamics associated with the transport and transformation of Energy being water vapour its carrier. I have posted this theory in different groups at LinkedIn where I have not found any claim against its validity. One single posture argued that water vapour has not increased in the atmosphere which can not be sustained based on the data showing the anomalies presented earlier in this article. Accordingly, I keep following new outcomes addressing similar lines of thinking.

It has taken my attention that on March 6, 2015, ICLR conducted a Friday Forum webinar entitled ‘Rapid Arctic warming and extreme weather events in mid-latitudes: Are they connected? with Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University. The ideas presented in this forum follow similar line of thinking and, almost, similar slides as the one presented on October 23, 2014 (the presentation can be watch in youtube. Dr Jennifer Francis at Wayne State University Welcome Center Auditorium. ), but with the introduction of new concepts. Concepts which resemble to close to those arguments which I have presented through my posts, to be mere coincidence. You can compare both presentations October 2014 and March 2015)

In the presentation showed in March 2015, there are new slides addressing:

  • 7. How do we know that humans are responsible?
  • 8. Evidence implicating humans One of our best tools: computer programs – climate models – that simulate the complex physics of the atmosphere, ocean, snow, ice, and land and all the forces acting on them. Solar + volcanic (natural)Observed Modeled All forcings (natural + human)
  • 9. And the atmosphere is gaining moisture… …providing more fuel to energize storms, a stronger greenhouse effect… …and an increased frequency of heavy precipitation events.

iclr-friday-forum-rapid-arctic-warming-and-extreme-weather-events-in-midlatitudes-are-they-connected-march-2015-10-638

  • 14. Arctic Amplification Not confined to surface! 250 hPa surface Temperature changes 1995 to 2013 40N 80N Height changes 1995 to 2013 40N 80N

https://i1.wp.com/image.slidesharecdn.com/franciswebinar3-6-15-150306114710-conversion-gate01/95/iclr-friday-forum-rapid-arctic-warming-and-extreme-weather-events-in-midlatitudes-are-they-connected-march-2015-15-638.jpg

In another hand, on the 12 – 17 April 2015 The EGU General Assembly 2015 will bring together geoscientists from all over the world to one meeting covering all disciplines of the Earth, planetary and space sciences in Vienna | Austria.

One abstract being submitted has taken my attention since it follows the line of thinking followed by Dr. Francis and the review paper from Cohen mentioned in her previous email,  adding a new concept not applied before: “associated energy propagation”.

The Relationship between Recent Arctic Amplification and Extreme Mid-Latitude Weather. Judah Cohen (1), James Screen (2), Jason Furtado (3), Mathew Barlow (4), David Whittleston (4), Dim Coumou (6), Jennifer Francis (7), Klaus Dethloff (8), Dara Entekhabi (9), and James Overland (10)

The possible link between Arctic change and mid-latitude weather can be broadly grouped under three potential dynamical mechanisms—changes in: storm tracks, the jet stream and planetary-waves and their associated energy propagation. I will discuss how less sea ice and increase snow cover separately can force more severe winter weather across the NH continents. I will conclude with a new idea for how it is possible for sea ice and snow cover to jointly influence mid-latitude weather.

EGU 2015 abstractMaybe the incorporation by Jennifer and colleges in their work of the line of thinking that I propose in my approach, considering Energy flows in the atmospheric circulation defining weather patterns, is a confirmation of that my research and line of thinking is a contribution in the right direction. But if that is the case, the acknowledgement of such contribution would help to unify efforts instead of creating isolation. If productivity is  measured by the ratio between investment and production, having my work acknowledged  would mean the highest level of productivity since it has no investment apart from my time and energy, as independent researcher in transition looking for a position in research.

Different scientists can work in parallel about same subjects and thanks to that, the comparison of results validate each other positions, methodologies and lines of thinking. And yet, only respect and ethical standards keep science as a reference discipline in which it used to be praised “contribution into the state of knowledge” over “positioning when marketing a product”. But only the scientific community can decide if they want to defend those values or be silent and let “every man survive for himself”, to become the best in the race for recognition. At the end, each one of us decides what is that we want to feel proud of being recognised for.

Any scientist working in this discipline knows how to judge the contribution of my work in the state of knowledge and I count on their ethical standards so the use of any content or outcome being generated based on it will acknowledge it.

I would like to not only be the one proposing this theory but also be involved in this line of research. Since I am in a transition period looking for a position in research, I publicly ask for institutional and economic support to find the means to contribute evaluating the accuracy of this theory. My free time to keep active in research is getting overtaken by the priority of having to find unrelated jobs to support daily demands so please keep it in mind when you consider the expectations on how much input I can offer without a position in research.

Follow this link for more info on Weather Mechanics.

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/Sect14_1c.html

_________________________________

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 discussing 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

The performance of my work as independent researcher, with no institutional and economic support, is limited by my lack of access to resources and economic stability. So far what I have published in this blog is what I have been able to offer with those limitations.

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 overcome the limitations of my cv 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.

PerspectiveSince October 2013 I have been 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.

Advertisements

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Citing This Site "Title", published online "Month"+"Year", retrieved on "Month""Day", "Year" from http://www.diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/bibliography/citations#! DOIs can be generated on demand by request at email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com for those publications missing at the ResearchGate profile vinculated with this project. **Author´s profile: Born in 1974. Bachelor in General Biology, Masters degree "Licenciado" in Environmental Sciences (2001, Spain). PhD in Aerobiology (2007, UK). Lived, acquired training and worked in Spain, UK, Germany and Poland. I have shared the outcome from my work previous to 2013 as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After 12 years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, in 2013 I found myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my own line of research. In the current competitive scenario, in order to demonstrate my capacities instead of just moving my cv waiting for my next opportunity to arrive, I decided to invest my energy and time in opening my own line of research sharing it in this blog. In March 2017 the budget reserved for this project has ended and its weekly basis time frame discontinued until new forms of economic and/or institutional support are incorporated into the project. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this platform and at LinkedIn has proved to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community as well as for publication in scientific journals. However, without a position as member of an institution, it becomes very challenging to be published. I hope that this handicap do not overshadow the value of my achievements and that the Intellectual Property Rights generated with the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in similar lines of research. **Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome as well as any approach exploring professional opportunities to be part of.** In this blog I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions. Furthermore, I try to break the barrier that academic publications very often offer isolating scientific findings from the general public. In that way I address those topics which I am familiar with, thanks to my training in environmental research, making them available throughout my posts. (see "Framework and Timeline" for a complete index). At this moment, 2017, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) gmail.com or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Also, I'd appreciate information about any opportunity that you might know and believe it could match with my aptitudes. The conclusions and ideas expressed in each post as part of my own creativity are part of my Intellectual Portfolio and are protected by Intellectual Property Laws. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial conditions. In citing my work from this website, be sure to include the date of access. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2017. Filling in or Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Aerobiology, Energy Balance, Environmental Resilience, Filling in, Influence of Continentality, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Pingback: Orbital Melting vs Kinetic Melting (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  2. Pingback: Temp Displacements. Solid Water In A Dessert Which Is Not At The Poles. (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  3. Pingback: Following The Herd on Assessing Climatic Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  4. Pingback: Breaking Stereotypes Assessing Climatic Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  5. Pingback: 8th August 2017. Weather analyses and Climatic implications. Follow-up on previous assessments and real time developments over the NH, South and Central Europe By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  6. Pingback: Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  7. Pingback: Statistical Significance and The Scary Side of Being Mild (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s