The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)


The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

(updated 13 June 2016)

You might be familiar with the butterfly theory.

From fractalfoundation.org I want to introduce here their description over the Chaos theory and their implications on the complex subject of Scientific thought and environmental policies:

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature. Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.

Principles of Chaos

  • The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened. A more rigorous way to express this is that small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results. Our lives are an ongoing demonstration of this principle. Who knows what the long-term effects of teaching millions of kids about chaos and fractals will be?
  • Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.
  • Order / Disorder Chaos is not simply disorder. Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder, which often occur in surprising ways.
  • Mixing: Turbulence ensures that two adjacent points in a complex system will eventually end up in very different positions after some time has elapsed. Examples: Two neighboring water molecules may end up in different parts of the ocean or even in different oceans. A group of helium balloons that launch together will eventually land in drastically different places. Mixing is thorough because turbulence occurs at all scales. It is also nonlinear: fluids cannot be unmixed.
  • Feedback: Systems often become chaotic when there is feedback present. A good example is the behaviour of the stock market. As the value of a stock rises or falls, people are inclined to buy or sell that stock. This in turn further affects the price of the stock, causing it to rise or fall chaotically.
  • Fractals: A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

-Albert Einstein

Arctic and Mid-Latitude Circulation.

If we consider that a butterfly can have an effect over atmospheric circulation we have to consider the interconnections between all parts of the system which generates our climate. And many of those considerations come from reassessing the impact from seeing basic principles playing with new magnitudes derived from the constant change in the composition of our environment in the solid, liquid and gaseous phases (land, atmosphere and water cycles).

One particular point of unsettled science highlighted in my research moves in opposite directionality from that interpreted by the Arctic Amplification theory.

The latest theory 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 in its majority over the amount of moisture carried capable to absorb energy.

My theory (ref Oct 21, 2014, and ref Feb 2, 2015) 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 but also affects the resilience shown by Lows and Highs to dissipate its energy.

From the publication:

Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. (10 Feb 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 the publication:

Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. (29 Jan 2016) (video)

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 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. Moreover, if my take over the present developments is accurate, what comes after is what will make things interesting.

Feedback and Follow-Up

In order to expose my assessments to public review by a multidisciplinary audience I have shared in several groups at LinkeIn (AGU, NOAA, …) but also in 2014 I sent few emails asking for feedback to relevant scientists in the field.

My query was simple, I just wanted 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”.

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.

On 17th of December 2014, Jennifer Francis sent her answer to me (full email exchange 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.

Francis communication

As Jennifer pointed out, “many of my statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research.” Which means that my assessments analyse unsettled and unprecedented science. And, therefore, since 2014, I have not been able to rely on comparing my research with other’s, and, I have had to keep constantly observing and analysing how the atmospheric developments corroborate the accuracy of my theory.

This constant following-up work has been shared throughout the publications found in this blog and at researchgate.

Observational Follow-up and Peer-reviewed research verifying my statements.

The situation pointed out by Jennifer in which my assessments could not be verified by peer reviewed research left me in “nobodies land”. Despite my efforts looking for interaction at LinkedIn groups such as AGU (links to the discussions at LinkeIn: link1 and link2) and NOAA, nobody showed their postures either in agreement or disagreement.

Therefore I could only keep observing the developments unfolding throughout the atmosphere and analyse their significance as the only process of verification and review available.

Many of the weather events seen in the recent years, and the location for those events, seem to corroborate previous assessments. You will find full discussions in the publications shared in this blog like the following ones:

Among many assessments, in April 2015 I analysed the situation over Greenland due to a resilient high pressure system:

Two models, GFS (left) and ECMWF (right), forecast for the 25th April 2015 a High pressure enclosed over Greenland matching exactly its size.

Total Square What do you see Square What do you see

Questions and answers

I can consider two possible scenarios. The models are accurate or not. But then, some major questions raise here.

One would be if the models overestimate the difference in albedo between Snow and surrounding Sea Ice when they simulate their effect over atmospheric pressure at the sea level. Consequently the mapping of the extent of Land Being Covered by Snow marks the margins for the High pressure to develop.

But, considering that the models are accurate, several major questions arise:

  • The impact of Land Cover is strong enough to define the conditions driving the evolution of Atmospheric Processes (in this case High Pressure) involved in Atmospheric Circulation. That brings more evidences about the influence of continentality, and the activities carried inland, over  the atmospheric circulation.
  • The level of transformation on Land Use and Cover required to have an impact over atmospheric processes can be as small as the differences triggered in albedo between Ice cover and Snow cover.

Commonly reported Albedo values from different surface types.

Surface              Albedo value %
Soil                                  4
Forest                              8
Gravel road                   12
Bare soil                         17
Green grass                   25
Sand                               40
Concrete                         55
Snow                               85

Synergistic interactions exist between:

  • Land Cover and Use with
  • Albedo and Surface Temperature
  • which are linked with Atmospheric Pressure developments,
  • which are related with Atmospheric Composition and Behaviour
  • and all of them are dependent on Energy flows and gradients.

This post is part of a bigger piece of work looking into the synergistic interactions and the relevance of the role played by Land Cover over Atmospheric Circulation and the Meteorological Processes associated. The situation over Greenland seems to be a perfect example pointing out the existence of such strong interactions and synergy as much as it has also been observed in the behaviour of the atmospheric circulation over the Amazones.

There are many factors interacting throughout feedback loops in our climate, and here, I have just looked at the impact generated by alterations in albedo. This example highlights the necessity for not underestimating the relevance from spread changes in Land Cover and Use across all continents changing the albedo properties of surfaces, and their potential impact  over the global atmospheric circulation.

Peer-reviewed research verifying my statements.

New Peer-reviewed research begin to appear in scientific journals in 2016 which show to corroborate the assessments part of my line of research:

  • The 5th May 2016, a study published over the Hadley circulation supports the assessments pointing out a deformation in the patterns followed in atmospheric circulation extending mid-latitude influence into Polar Latitudes: Research Update May 2016 (by Diego Fdez-sevilla).
  • On June 9th 2016, Nature has published an article by Tedesco and colleagues which seems to corroborate the assessment considering Energy flows, distribution and dispersion in the generation of new atmospheric patterns defining weather patterns.

The findings expressed in the publication by Tedesco et al. support the assessments expressed throughout my line of research pointing out the relevance behind addressing the impact of having an increase in the energy pool being spread over the atmosphere.

The Washington post has presented the publication by Tedesco et al and Chris Mooney has presented some of the author’s explanation behind their findings (link):

Weird jet stream behaviour could be making Greenland’s melting even worse, scientists say.

A group of scientists looked back at the last summer melt season — 2015 — they found something odd and troubling.

Specifically, they found that Greenland had shown much more unusual melting in its colder northern stretches than in the warmer south, and that this had occurred because of very strange behavior in the atmosphere above it. During the month of July, an atmospheric phenomenon called a “cutoff high” — a region of high pressure that stayed relatively immobile over the ice sheet, bringing with it sustained sunny conditions — lingered for many days and produced unusual warmth at the surface and record melting for northwest Greenland.

A cutoff high “describes this atmospheric high pressure system that detaches from the jet stream, in this case, and then basically sits there, it’s almost like living by itself,” said Marco Tedesco, the lead author of the study just published in Nature Communications, and a researcher with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. “You can imagine something with enough energy to sustain itself, and there’s nothing bothering it. And it’s sitting right there, and that is driving the clear sky conditions over northwest, and also blowing the cold air over southwest.”

The high was accompanied, in this case, by a northward departure of the mid-latitude jet stream — a stream of air in the northern hemisphere that can travel in a more or less wavy route as it progresses from west to east — that set a record for its northward extent, the study found.

Observational Assessments and Peer Review Research Agree Verifying the Line of Research Published in this Blog. Now what?

Since when in 2014 I started publishing my assessments on climatic and atmospheric dynamics, many atmospheric conditions have shown to support the accuracy behind my assessments. Now even peer review research is showing to verify the accuracy of the assessments followed in the line of research published in this blog. So, now what?

So far, the most of the feedback reactions we see in the atmosphere put in contact masses of air moving horizontally. 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.

As I have said earlier, all that is just the beginning of a process resultant from seeing mid latitudinal circulation invading Arctic circulation, what comes after is what it will make things interesting.

Personal note

I can not obviate the fact that what ever the efforts I put in adding scientific values into the state of knowledge through my work I am completely at the expense of the scientific community to acknowledge it.

As Jennifer Francis pointed out back in her email on December 2014, my research and assessments are original and genuine since those “have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research”. If those assessments are not acknowledged in the publications appearing in scientific journals is not due to my secretism since I have made any effort on my part to share it with those in touch with the major names in the scientific community, making it available through emails, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, my blog and scientific groups at LinkedIn. So if anybody wonders how much credibility should apply into my research since it is not been acknowledged by scientists in their publications you will have to ask them.

Full exchange of emails with Jennifer Francis on December 2014.

Email exchange Diego Fdez-Sevilla research Jennifer Francis

As you might have seen as part of my summary I am in a transition period, working on my own line of research, trying to make my capacities visible beyond the limitations of my CV. I hope that in this manner I will attract the attention of those, whom either might find in me an asset to add into their projects, or are willing to offer me support to develop further my line of research. Since I don´t have institutional support I can not publish in scientific journals. Since I don´t publish in journals I don´t have institutional support. That makes me a researcher in the bench, meanwhile I am exposing myself to see others mimicking my work, do not acknowledge my influence in theirs and take the credit.

Like a Butterfly might have an effect over the atmospheric circulation, any action we take influence others. And by the actions we choose to take, we all choose what is that we want to be recognised for.

Stats Linkedin Diego Fdez-Sevilla 2016

Stats WordPress Institutions AND Visits 2016 Diego Fdez-Sevilla

If you want to know more over previous assessments you should follow the links through the present text and explore the publications and categories described in the top menu of this blog.

If you are among those who follow my work I believe that you will find useful the following video to understand my assessments.

_________________________________

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, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Influence of Continentality, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

  1. Pingback: Who has the right and the responsibility to discuss Climate as a topic of debate? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla

  2. Pingback: Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. | diego fdez-sevilla

  3. Pingback: (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla

  4. Pingback: (UPGRADED 24th March2015) Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. | diego fdez-sevilla

  5. Pingback: Snap shot of a day 22 June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla

  6. Pingback: Indian Basin June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla

  7. Pingback: Research From The Bench (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  8. Pingback: Dream Your Way Out (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  9. Pingback: Foreseeable, at the moment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  10. Pingback: Foreseeable, at the moment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  11. Pingback: Climbing The Hill Of Development (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  12. Pingback: Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  13. Pingback: Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  14. Pingback: Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  15. Pingback: Ups and Downs on Climatic Assessments. A Matter of Multiple Perspectives from the Same Point of View (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  16. Pingback: Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  17. Pingback: Aug 2016 Follow-up on previous assessments. Atmospheric Dynamics, Temperature Displacements, Atmospheric Mixing (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  18. Pingback: The True Meaning of Things (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla , PhD.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  19. Pingback: Summer is what summer brings (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  20. Pingback: In Climate, Too Many Strange Things Are Happening (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  21. Pingback: Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  22. Pingback: Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | diego fdez-sevilla, PhD.

  23. Pingback: Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  24. Pingback: Forecasting Past Events In Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  25. Pingback: A conversation between Joaquin and Matthew (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  26. Pingback: Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  27. Pingback: Energy in our environmental systems. Follow-up on previous assessments. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  28. Pingback: Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  29. Pingback: From Juno and Jonas to Janet (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  30. Pingback: Forecast Unusual (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  31. Pingback: Atmospheric Thermal Conductance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  32. Pingback: Just Thinking on Climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  33. Pingback: “The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  34. Pingback: RECAP on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  35. Pingback: Wind conditions 250 hPa Jet Stream. What a Mess. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  36. Pingback: Worst than a change is a pattern of no change ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

  38. Pingback: The value of having a point of view (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

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

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

  42. 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