Climbing The Hill Of Development (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Climbing The Hill Of Development (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

(For references to this publication either use the guidance offered at the page “Citations” How to cite this site or the DOI linked with the Pdf file at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27552.79360)

Last week I found topics being addressed independently from each other by members of my network at LinkedIn which I find to be related.

What once could have been the “normal” has become the “precious” rare.

Patricie Polakova shared a picture of a very nice location in “Čertovo” (Devil) Lake – Šumava mountains, Czech Republic.

Patricie Polakova

I made a comment with which I wanted to represent the connection of many environmental issues in one:

It puts in perspective the whole lot of meaning behind the power that the decision of one single person can have to change such a beautiful scenario. Lets hope “development” changes its meaning before we change everything following the actual meaning of “development“.

Big Challenges require one big effort or many small ones

Few days ago I posted in this blog an entrance aimed to acknowledge the effort put by small groups adopting hand-on strategies to confront environmental issues derived from the fast paced rate of human development, like the impact of litter in the health state of natural environments. In that particular case, plastics in the Ocean.

There is a lot of “behind the curtains” work and people which does not take the credit they deserve. And because they do not make the tabloids they don´t get the attention and support that would increase their potential to have a bigger impact. Some innocuous papers can get more attention than the work carried out by these initiatives and people. Thanks to their persistence and passion, little by little, thinks are being done without mainstream media noticing.

The Development of “Mainstream Social Science”

The impact of public debates over environmental issues present in mainstream social media is another question which has taken my attention.

One of those reads which came across my path, but I can not recall its exact location, pointed out the problem generated with the excess of information available. And it made particular reference to the difficulty of filtering the good from the bad or misleading information. This subject has been touched by more people and it is generating an increasing demand of attention, as well as opinions.

Some people choose only peer review articles as a source of valid information. Some others question such attitude since we live in a world dominated by Political agendas and corporative interests where scientific publishing and research funding is being dominated and manipulated through economical pressures as much as any other sectors.

Some people have supported the value behind the contribution given by blogs hold by people with a scientific background. However, with the increasing access to information, an increasing number of individuals claim to hold the right training. So many people are willing to judge scientific postures, some people offer constructive discussion, less people take the risk of building up their own scientific alternative assessment and almost none of those judging others would take the responsibility of being the ones answering questions. All that activity is included under the umbrella of social fictitious science, drowning in the mud the already deteriorated public image of the scientific community.

My take on this issue is part of a repeating “mantra” which I have tried to highlight in this blog. The relevance of the answers we get are defined by the meaningfulness of the questions formulated. In scientific research, answers have to be objective. So the questions justifying its relevance can not come just from passionated rants. Being a scientist is not about having answers for everything. It is about building with knowledge the capacity to separate passion from objectivity. A perspective from where we can observe the world understanding which are our limitations to address the questions yet to be answered and identify the right sequence in priority for those to invest our energy.

So the first question everybody has to understand is why our thoughts are similar or different from those shared by others. Is it because we share similar training and education? social background? political views? are we applying similar methodology? do we give similar priority to the repercussion of different factors involved?

If you find the appropriate question, and don´t loose track of it while looking for answers, it is easier to find the right information telling you which is the state of knowledge for this particular matter.

The Question

In the issue of climatic drifts and their links with human activities, we have to remember, why did it came the question into place?

The Earth has had many climatic changes through its existence. And, through many of those, the conditions were so rough that we, as specie, would have straggled to survive. So, even considering the paleoclimate of our planet being in constant change, there is a component which makes a difference when we compare those previous changes. This component is time. In one hand is the time rate at which changes take place. How abrupt are those changes. In other hand it is space, how many factors coexist in location at the same time.

The changes that we are seeing in the conditions associated with temperature in our planet are happening at a fast pace so when we look at which forces interacting with our climate are changing in magnitude at similar fast paced rate the question raised:

  • If the time rate that we see for atmospheric changes to happen is due to a factor speeding the process, which factor is different from previous paleoclimatic records? And the most rapid developing factor in contact with our changing planet is Human Development.

The Method

So the question in itself represents a situation of change which, it might not be new to the planet in its nature, but it is in its shape. It is the shape of our environment what it is changing and we have realised that we are still trying to understand the role that we play as specie.

And the methodology which we, as a collective force of scientific thought, are applying is proving to be far more complicated than everybody would expect at first. Some people even question that human expansion and its capabilities to transform its surroundings could have any significant impact in our climatic regimes, ever.

What I see as a major conflict in scientific evolution is the debate created around the mere fact of having to justify which questions are worthy to be addressed? That is an attitude which involves assuming a huge amount of responsibility. Like if we can afford to move forward with only one eye open and the other one blindfolded.

Science nowadays it is showing to be, at least, as “independent” as it is justice from political views, and political decisions from economic powers.

There is a ministry of education in every country and yet there is no ministry of science. What we need to manage is not only how we teach knowledge but how we produce it. It  seems that science, like many other establishments, is loosing the trust and recognition required to generate an independent body of knowledge which would be applied on making assessments and policies, manage their implementation and justify the educational contents being taught.

Justice, Political Ideals, Scientific Knowledge and Sustainable Economy walk hand by hand driving the path chosen for humanity. All those challenges which society face today in all aspects of live are not new in our history. Racism, Religion and Political confrontation, economic deterioration, and lost of trust in management are like the challenges faced by science, not new in history but new in shape.

Times have changed, our surroundings have changed so the reactions triggered against old similar problems have different repercussions. From local disruptions with local impacts we have moved to generate synergistic links which connect us globally. We have moved from identifying previous organic climatic drifts confronted by a functionally resilient and equilibrated environment in the past to ask ourselves how much tampering can our land, air and water systems tolerate, under a continuously increasing and extensive pressure, before they embark on a one-way path towards a new equilibrium less beneficial for our development? The mere existence of a reality which justifies such question makes all the difference. Without all the changes that our planetary systems have being accumulating through time due to human activities (atmospheric composition, water cycles displacements, land cover and biotic composition) we would not have reached the state of considering our development enough to generate a reasonable doubt.

The Answer

Some answers are offered to calm down expectations but those answers scape to analyse the meaningfulness of addressing any relevant question. One example comes from a recent article: “3 developments that could help the world stay below a dangerous global warming threshold”. (

  1. Green energy is getting cheaper
  2. Carbon dioxide emissions have stopped rising
  3. Green jobs are good for the economy

1- The industry of “green” energy is getting cheaper.

Lets hope that “cheaper” has a meaning which does not replicate what happened with the increasingly cheaper “digital” industry and the increasingly amount of digital waste produced. Once more, it seems that solutions and problems can be geolocated. The solutions for some societies are part of the problem for others. So, in “average”, we might not move far from where we are. (see related article at:

2- Carbon dioxide emissions have stopped rising

Emissions or concentration? Both are very different things.

Less CO2 being emitted is related with production. Concentration measured is related with the volume of the atmosphere accommodating the CO2 emitted.

When we see applied the reasoning of “Emissions not raise”, this is a concept which implies that they keep being emitted at the same rate as previously. It is like saying that your house is getting under water but the water flow rate has stopped increasing. Now that the “emissions” from the leaks of water into your house do not “raise”, they just keep flooding your house but at a steady rate.  Which is not good, at all.

If you stop “increasing” the heat in your oven that will not avoid your food from getting burned.

The concentration of CO2 might not raise. And even the temperature might fluctuate. But all of that comes from measuring averages in an atmosphere with a volume which is compartmentalised in altitude and latitude (Mid-Latitudes and Polar Circulation). Based on my research I would expect that as the mixing ratio between  the masses of air contained in those “compartments” increases (more discussion at ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, and ref5) the measurements of temperature and concentrations will fluctuate, thanks partly to stratospheric warmings and a wobbly Jet Stream opening the Arctic circulation to mid-latitudes.

3-Green jobs are good for the economy

Meanwhile developed countries rely on economic consumption, underdeveloped countries on strengthening their economies. Everybody needs production and resources. Western countries sell technology for eastern cheap production and labour. Meanwhile, everybody waste resources. We waste more than we consume, energy efficiency is not profitable, nothing is built to last any more and food is thrown away just to control the prices in the markets.

Curiously enough, the kind of economy claiming to improve “green jobs” do not accommodate science as a sector in which the conditions are improving, and that is settled science for some.

Scientists have been put on the spot. Some enjoy it, others feel under pressure, in front of an audience looking for whom to blame from the result of political decisions. The image of “an united effort” should not only be political, it also should have a botanist, an edaphologist, a physicist, a chemist, an oceanographer, a climatologist, … and the outcome from such meeting, I am sure, it would not bring such a cheerful picture as from PARIS2015. There is nothing to celebrate when you identify a problem and moreover, if you feel the pressure from having to take the responsibility of dealing with it. It is like celebrating that there is consensus on that the roof of your own house needs to be replaced, you have to do the work and not only to not loose money but furthermore, generate profits.

Political Policies

The 18th of May (2016) I attended to a speech given by the sub-director of the Spanish Office of Climate Change. He started his speech acknowledging the efforts behind the Paris meeting and used the majority of his more than an hour of talking describing the complex process of being a politician gathering different sides together to address issues on the GHGs agenda. What surprised me the most was the ending of his speech. In the last 15 minutes he explained that the real deal and responsibility lies in the hands of the population and their daily decisions. At the Q&A time I presented my arguments to perform a question:

Despite the fact that industry has a far bigger impact than urban populations, we both industry and population, are obliged to follow the laws and directives designed by Politicians. We are free to choose, but only between the options given by the policies and laws dictated by our governments. One example, in Spain, we can not have a house with an autonomous supply of electric energy. If you produce electricity you have to pay for it, even if it comes from your own solar panels. Consumption facilities have to pay a fee for each kilowatt-hour of energy self-consumed instantaneously. There is also another charge (fixed charge) to be paid in respect of all facilities including those using batteries. (article related here. European Commission posture here).

Since the industry of a country and its population is ruled by the policies dictated by the governments I asked: “what was the relationship between the beginning of his speech giving so much credit to the efforts behind the Paris meeting and, his final assessment putting the responsibility of mitigating the impact from human activities over the global ecosystem over the shoulders of the population?. (I felt that there was a gap missing the link between those two. And I promise that I paid attention)

The answer was… an elaborated improvisation of self preservation. I am aware of that the organisers made a sound recording of this speech but I haven´t found it in the internet.

Climbing The Hill of Development

The reason behind the title for this article is that in all aspects of climate research it feels like we are climbing a hill in too many senses. The effort that it takes to move in scientific agreement and the measurements being monitored. And we have become so used to see numbers climbing that it seems like a relief when we are told that the deterioration of our environment has stopped from increasing regardless the implications from keep happening at an steady continuous pace.

The table and the graph show annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates for Mauna Loa. In the graph, decadal averages of the growth rate are also plotted, as horizontal lines for 1960 through 1969, 1970 through 1979, and so on Source.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago.

Lüthi, D., et al. 2008. EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Carbon Dioxide Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2008-055. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. “accessed from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy” Source.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times:

CDIAC: 50-year moving averages of spline-function values of CH4, CO2, N2O

Measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year. (Source)

CO2 Cape Grim Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

The carbon dioxide data (red curve), measured as the mole fraction in dry air, on Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Keeling, 1976]. NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then [Thoning, 1989]. The black curve represents the seasonally corrected data.

Data are reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air multiplied by one million (ppm).

Monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. Source.

Are GHGs all we should care about?

The image which I used to open this article is what we could expect to see almost everywhere in the paleoclimatic records. A healthy ecosystem in a clean environment. Even under the influence of a natural warming period, there is a big difference in the amount of radiation required to explain the increase of temperature the way it happens nowadays if our atmosphere did not contain GHGs and aerosols at the present concentration and the soils were protected under a dense healthy biotic cover and accessible water.

In 1969 Eugene P. Odum wrote an article titled The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.” An understanding of ecological succession provides a basis for resolving man’s conflict with nature. Athens (Georgia, US), 1969. (First published in Science, volume 164, number 3877, pages 262-270.)

When we compare the actual state of our environment and the assessments in this publication from 47 years ago, this article can help to put in perspective the cumulative bias which under my point of view is obviated when focusing exclusively on GHGs assessing the state of change in a global system, driven by synergistic interactions, and under constant pressure throughout time. A bias which is generating new publications giving the impression of identifying new challenges when, in fact, are just part of a long ongoing process.

In some of the previous publications in this blog I have addressed the relevance of understanding the impact from human management over synergistic relationships between biotic and none biotic components in our environment in relation with climatic developments:

I can not expect from you to read them, but there is a line of continuum progression in the assessments that I publish in this blog that makes all previous publications to be interconnected and related with the publication from Eugene P. Odum (1969).

The abstract of the paper reads as follow:

“The principles of ecological succession bear importantly on the relationships between man and nature. The framework of successional theory needs to be examined as a basis for resolving man’s present environmental crisis. Most ideas pertaining to the development of ecological systems are based on descriptive data obtained by observing changes in biotic communities over long periods, or on highly theoretical assumptions; very few of the generally accepted hypotheses have been tested experimentally. Some of the confusion, vagueness, and lack of experimental work in this area stems from the tendency of ecologists to regard succession as a single straightforward idea; in actual fact, it entails an interacting complex of processes, some of which counteract one another.

As viewed here, ecological succession involves the development of ecosystems; it has many parallels in the developmental biology of organisms, and also in the development of human society. The ecosystem, or ecological system, is considered to be a unit of biological organization made up of all of the organisms in a given area (that is, community) interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to characteristic trophic structure and material cycles within the system. It is the purpose of this article to summarize, in the form of a tabular model, components and stages of development at the ecosystem level as a means of emphasizing those aspects of ecological succession that can be accepted on the basis of present knowledge, those that require more study, and those that have special relevance to human ecology.”

From the body of the publication I would like to highlight:

The basic problem facing organized society today boils down to determining in some objective manner when we are getting too much of a good thing.

This is a completely new challenge to mankind because, up until now, he has had to be concerned largely with too little rather than too much. Thus, concrete is a good thing, but not if half the world is covered with it. Insecticides are good things, but not when used, as they now are, in an indiscriminate and wholesale manner. Likewise, water impoundments have proved to be very useful man-made additions to the landscape, but obviously we don’t want the whole country inundated! Vast man-made lakes solve some problems, at least temporarily, but yield comparative little food or fiber, and, because of high evaporative losses, they may not even be the best device for storing water; it might better be stored in the watershed or underground in aquifers. Also, the cost of building large dams is a drain on already overtaxed avenues. Although as individuals we can have too many dams or other large-scale environmental changes, governments are so fragmented and lacking in systems-analysis capabilities that there is no effective mechanism whereby negative feedback signals can be received and acted on before there has been a serious overshoot. Thus, today there are governmental agencies, spurred on by popular and political enthusiasm for dams, that are putting on the drawing boards plans for damming every river and stream in North America!

Society needs, and must find as quickly as possible, a way to deal with the landscape as a whole, so that manipulative skills (that is, technology) will not run too far ahead of our understanding of the impact of change.”

Last Thoughts

Back in May 2015 I wrote in this blog an entrance titled Steering climate´s course (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla). As part of this publication I wrote:

Arctic Amplification has introduced feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds. Changes in the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat— are the ones often cited as the main contributor. What I am researching about are the mechanisms provoking those changes in albedo. I am looking at the implications of having the Arctic circulation not “Amplifying” but “Absorbing” increases in water vapour due to atm CO2, triggering; early snowfalls in central Asia, Arctic ice cover meltdown and oceanic increases in salinity and ultimately, the origin of atmospheric blocking patterns and possibly, the pause in T raise.

Arctic and Antarctic circulations behave in a very different way due to its particular asymmetries as consequence of their land/ocean thermal contrasts and Ocean circulation.

All the oscillations considered in atmospheric circulation, PDO, OA, AMO, Solar activity… move around pivoting points. These pivoting points make the impact from those oscillations close to neutral in a long time scale.

We can see that by looking at the gene pool in the evolution of the biological environment which we see today. An environment which has evolved closely thanks to environmental resilience absorbing perturbations originated from those oscillations.

Without resilience, the severity of the variations associated with the oscillations would have not allowed genetic evolution to grow in such a close divergence as we have seen. The climate through latitudes has suffered variations but the global climate has allowed species to develop closely instead of perishing without time for adaptation inducing the generation of new branches of genetic divergence.

Two major components are working side by side in our planet. Passive mechanisms driven by thermodynamic forces transferring energy between components of the ecosystem and, Active processes absorbing, transforming and storing energy throughout biochemical processes.

Consequently, two postures rise in the debate from these two mechanisms:

Are thermodynamics defining the state which allow life to evolve in a changing climate? or, Are biotic systems the ones which develop against thermodynamic fluctuations taming the weather?

Foreseeable Atmospheric Dynamics and Climatic Developments

In September 2015 I wrote an article (ref3) describing the progression in the development of atmospheric dynamics following the theoretical approach published in 2014 (ref1 and ref2) which describes the implications of facing the atmosphere accommodating increasing amounts of water vapour as the carrier of energy being spread  throughout the atmosphere in altitude and latitude due to the positive feedback originated from higher concentrations of GHGs and aerosols.

Some weather patterns seen in the years following 2013 seem to agree with the mechanisms proposed in the line research published in this blog. (ref4 and ref5)

In particular for the present publication in time, 27 July 2016, it is worthy to mention the conditions being observed over the whole globe. In the North Hemisphere heat waves have begun to take place moving northward in India, then Europe and EEUU. Those heat displacements follow continental basins, the same surface where the management of emissions and land cover can make a difference.

Last week, in the South Hemispheric winter, heat displacements moved into Antarctic latitudes, and the location for those seem to be in alignment with continental proximity. I discussed such scenario in a post.

Heat Antarctica July 2016 Diego Fdez-Sevilla

Following the mechanisms described in the post A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla), any volume of air coming inside a compartmentalized space displace another volume of air moving out. And that is what it seems to have just happened over the South Polar altitudes.

Record breaking rainfall and cold weather grips South Africa. Met Office Source)

Posted on 26 July, 2016 by Met Office Press Office.

There has been snowfall, heavy rain, and flooding across parts of South Africa as a low pressure system moves slowly along the southern coast.

Rainfall affecting coastal areas of South Africa.

Rainfall affecting coastal areas of South Africa.

Flooding and mudslides have been reported in and around Durban with the city recording 150mm of rainfall in 12 hours on Monday, that’s equal to 5 times its average July rainfall.   Along the coast in Paddock, 315mm of rain has fallen since Sunday, equivalent to around a third of the rainfall it would expect in a whole year.

Meanwhile inland in the southeastern interior there has been heavy snowfall. The South African Weather Service has issued a number of snow warnings and has highlighted the risk of travel disruption for various passes between the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.  There is a further 15-25cm of snow expected in the area over the next few days.


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)

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) All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Data policy The products processed by "Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD" are made available to the public for educational and/or scientific purposes, without any fee on the condition that you credit "Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD" as the source. Copyright notice: © Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD 2013-2019 orcid: and the link to its source at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress or permanent DOI found at Reearchgate. Profile and verified scientific activity also at: Should you write any scientific publication on the results of research activities that use Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD products as input, you shall acknowledge the Diego Fdez-Sevilla's PhD Project in the text of the publication and provide an electronic copy of the publication ( If you wish to use the Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD products in advertising or in any commercial promotion, you shall acknowledge the Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Project and you must submit the layout to Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD for approval beforehand ( The work here presented has no economic or institutional support. Please consider to make a donation to support the means for making sustainable the energy, time and resources required. Also any sponsorship or mentoring interested would be welcome. Intellectual Property This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage:! For those publications missing at the ResearchGate profile vinculated with this project DOIs can be generated on demand by request at email: d.fdezsevilla(at) **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.** 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, 2019, 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) or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and 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 and DOIs found at the Framework and Timeline page and ResearchGate. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2018. Filling in or/and Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at ***
This entry was posted in Aerobiology, Aerosols, Biological productivity, Energy Balance, Environmental Resilience, Filling in, Finding out, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Water vapour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Climbing The Hill Of Development (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

  1. Anuradha Ghai says:

    Thank you for this post. Your comment, “There is a ministry of education in every country and yet there is no ministry of science” enlightened me to the lack of support for collaborative forces across all fields of science needed in this world to effect change. The silo mentality may come from competition for resources and adequate funding at institutions of higher education and think tanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks Anuradha for sharing your thoughts.

      I agree with you on that competition for resources and adequate funding is an issue, and I am not isolated from it.
      My research is independent at its core since I have used my savings, time and energy to sustain it. But that is not sustainable.
      Either I find funding to keep developing my research or I will just take a job position and focus my energy into the new challenge. And like me, under pressure, the mentality which comes from competition for resources and adequate funding is replicated at institutions of higher education and think tanks. If their sustainability gets compromised, their mentality is tamed and their critical capacity squeezed. Like breaking a horse science goes towards becoming mere forms of transporting political agendas.


  2. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. Pingback: The Polar Vortex breaks again in the North Hemisphere 22 Nov 2014. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

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

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

  22. Pingback: RECAP 9Dec16 on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Reply to Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.