Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.
(last update 9th Aug 2016. In order to facilitate the differentiation between present and past as well as first person and third person, I have applied colouring to letters in paragraphs. “Black” to refer to first person, in present and “Blue” to first person in past, referring to previous publications. “Maroon”, third person email, and “Gray”, third person and external references. I hope it makes sense and helps. Comments are welcome in the comment section or at my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com)
In 2014 the line of research defined by the assessments published in this blog could not be verified by peer review articles due to the absence of them applying similar approach. That was confirmed by direct communication with Prof Jennifer Francis by email (in full here). I shared with her my views over changes in atmospheric dynamics expressed in two publications:
“date: Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM
I have been for a year looking into synergies and parameters which might regulate our climate at global scale and I would like to know your opinion about the accuracy of a theory that I am working on. Could you help me here?
My name is Diego Fdez-Sevilla. I am a Biologist with a PhD in Aerobiology. After couple of years doing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I am myself in a period of transition searching for a new job. However, in such competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in finding ways to stay active in research showing what I am capable of. Since without resources it is very difficult to create data with the standards to publish in scientific journals, I have started my own blog in which I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions.
Throughout several posts in my blog, I have explored the connections between Solar activity, Biological productivity, Polar vortex, Environmental Resilience, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Energy Balance and the Influence of Continentality on Extreme Climatic Events. Based on my criteria (always open for corrections) I have developed a theory about what I believe it has induced an increase in atmospheric water vapor content and, further I discuss its implications in atmospheric circulation, Jet Stream behaviour and weather system’s patterns.
Based on my previous research published in this blog and, the arguments pointed out in various assessment, I propose for open evaluation by the scientific community the theory of “Facing a reduced differential energy gradient in atmospheric circulation” and the consequent implications over Weather Patterns, Atmospheric Circulation and Atmospheric Oscillations.
In order for me to test the accuracy and validity of my arguments I would like to find feedback from a multidisciplinary audience. And here is where I ask for your help. I am aware of that you might be busy with your daily responsibilities so I understand that it could take you a while to reply. At the same time, I am cautious about how my own perspective about my own work is limited, and I am open to receive feedback giving me a reality check showing how un-relevant it can be the line of research that I address in my approach. Both options would be welcome. Before moving forward in the development of my thoughts I believe that I have to calibrate the accuracy of my conclusions and points of view.
You will find the most relevant posts in the following links:
- New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) October 21, 2014
- Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
Thank you in advance.
If you don´t have time I would appreciate you could give me a brief reply so I can confirm that you have received this message.
On December 17, 2014, I was very grateful for having her answer:
“On this particular topic, I would suggest reading the recent review paper (link) 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.”
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 atmosphere provoking Artic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Artic Amplification in atm heat absorption. 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 find common ground to explain the cause leading to Artic 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, 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.”
Since those emails (in full here) many more assessments have been published in this blog
supporting the line of research purposed (see Timeline here). Those publications have received many visits but few researchers have chosen to share their opinion on them. And none to acknowledge their contribution publicly through their work. (see a list of centres visiting this blog at the bottom on the right side of this page).
In 2016, some peer reviewed publications start to appear supporting those assessments and arguments shared in this blog. If you are familiarised with them you will easily identify the arguments verifying each other despite the difference between the vocabulary applied in my assessments (open for understanding to most levels) and those in the scientific journals.
If you need some clarification on why my assessments are not published in scientific journals, the reason is that: through the line of research that I have presented since 2013, I have not had a remunerated position in research, neither economic or institutional support which would allow me to do it. Furthermore, as Jennifer said, the data and assessments which I supply, based on analytical thinking and observation, even though, those are consistent with the arguments which I developed and, they represented an innovation in identifying mechanisms and patterns in atmospheric dynamics, “could not be verified by previous published analyses“.
So it is up to you to consider the value of my assessments under the new light brought by the new analyses being published.
Previous assessments presenting the line of research published in this blog addressing changes in Atmospheric Circulation
Most data sets and scientific publications have shown to not be able of unifying scientific assessments in a single criteria. Sometimes allegedly blamed due to political agendas, other times due to methodological lack of agreement, also data sets with weaknesses, or simply because “the data was there” but there was no theoretical approach, conceptual framework or idealised mechanism able to explain the meaning behind it.
In this scenario, in order to avoid carrying unknown bias by following lines of research and conclusions adopted by other scientists, I decided to build my own conceptual and experimental framework, defining an independent line of research and choosing my own methodology to perform data research and analyses.
So far my research has led me to conclude that there is a real mechanism shifting the atmospheric circulation, primarily in the North Hemisphere. Such shift has shown through a major weakening in the barrier separating Arctic circulation from Mid-Latitudes and the Equator, the Polar Jet Stream.
This weakening in the latitudinal thermal contrast creating the steadiness of the Polar Jet Stream can be associated with the increase of anthropogenic GHG’s (C13 and C12) being spread all over the atmosphere, not just at a specific altitude.
The incorporation of those gases into atmospheric circulation at equator and mid-latitudes (wild fires/industry) enhance the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere. Such effect increases the capacity for the atmosphere to carry energy, mostly identified in the form of temperature (but not only). An elevation of temperature in the atmosphere increments the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb and transport a strong natural GHG’s which is water on its gaseous form. The process of evaporating water captures energy within water molecules. This energy gets incorporated in the energetic pool of the atmosphere as thermal energy (latent heat) also with the mass of water molecules increasing the gravitational energy available. The difference between the thermal energy carried by masses of air generate winds, and ultimately, it is such contrast that makes the fuel for the kinetic energy generating Jet Currents like the Polar Jet stream.
The data and observations which I analyse are similar to those followed by the Arctic Amplification theory. However, we apply a different approach and analyses giving as a result a different interpretation over the meaning of the factors and results obtained. Arctic Amplification is delimited in location and follows the idea of seeing faster increases of temperatures in the Arctic than at mid-latitudes (amplification) as a trigger for changes in atmospheric dynamics. Meanwhile, I consider it as another symptom resultant from a broader mechanism.
Like seeing the differences between taking increases in the temperature of a body as the cause of an illness, or just as part of the developments raised from a previous trigger, the identification of the right treatment is quite different.
I purpose a theory which considers Arctic increases of temperature as a symptom resultant from a broader distribution of energy through the atmosphere, in altitude and latitude. The repercussions from this theory implies to consider mechanism involving changes throughout the whole atmosphere, interacting throughout all levels of stratification (land, oceans and atmosphere, biotic and none biotic). Therefore, Artic Amplification, is just too narrow in location and too limited in considering wider synergistic interactions to be applied in the theory here purposed, farther than just as the result of the weathering effect exerted by warmer mid-latitudes pushing towards the Poles.
Continuity developing a line of research.
In 2013 I started to develop a new approach analysing climatic developments observing atmospheric dynamics assessing its behaviour as the result of being a medium containing an increasing amount of energy thanks to the GHG’s effect.
In Oct 2014 I published what is my interpretation over the actual developments in atmospheric dynamics and climatic drift:
“The theory that I have developed follows “in alignment” with the work published previously by scientists Judah Cohen, Masato Mori, Colin Summerhayes, Coumou and Ted Shepherd. Their work supported the theory of that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Arctic ice to melt. Their studies points to decreasing snow cover as the cause diminishing albedo enhancing heat absorption. Ultimately, their approach theorize that such enhanced capacity of the Arctic to absorb heat would lead to “amplify” atmospheric heat absorption already being fuelled with GHGs. And therefore, 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 is that the so called “Arctic Amplification” is a synchronic consequence altogether with other environmental phenomena (ENSO, NAO, etc…) and not the trigger. I defend that “Artic Amplification” is a symptom and not a causation of atmospheric dynamics. Arctic circulation does not amplify a process but on the contrary, it reflects the consequence of absorbing the influence from mid-latitude conditions.”
I am looking at the implications of having the Arctic circulation not “Amplifying” but “Absorbing” constant increases in atm CO2 and Water vapour. 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 wider process resultant from a reduction between the differential gradients of energy driving the atmospheric global circulation, being water vapour the carrier of the energy being dispersed all over the atmosphere.”
What I am trying to highlight in my theory are the possible mechanisms which would explain: changes in albedo which support the concept of “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 a slow down or “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 atmospheric circulation. (see more discussion and data at origin)
Back in Nov 2014 I also defended the existence of a “bottom-up” forcing from mid-latitudes circulation in altitude disrupting the Polar Vortex instead of following the mainly accepted argument assuming a down-forcing pressure from a broken polar vortex:
Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) November 14, 2014 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488
Here I hypothesise that it can be considered that the volume of the atmospheric system accommodating increasing conc. of GHGs and water vapour has expanded from sub-polar regions into Polar Circulation. Consequently, following the second law of thermodynamics, an added space for those gasses to expand would allow for the atmosphere containing GHGs and water vapour to retain more heat with no increase in atmospheric temperature. Which it could explain why under increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 there has been a so called “pause” in global warming.
Increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 and Water vapour would incorporate forms of energy not only into cyclonic events, increasing its strength, but also it would increment the energy in the atmosphere around it. A scenario in which the difference between the energy carried by an atmospheric event and the atmosphere surrounding it is high, the energy in a cyclonic event would dissipate faster, losing strength and resilience. However, we can see in the North Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, cyclonic and anticyclonic events building what it has being called “blocking patterns”, growing from near surface level (1000 hPa) to levels as high as the Jet Stream (250 hPa).
For all of these reasons, I see a reasonable link between the recent observed disturbance in the atmospheric circulation of the Jet Stream, without the Polar Vortex being broken yet, and the possibility of being the result of a decrease in the differential gradients of energy between cyclonic events and atmospheric barriers like the Jet Stream. Under such scenario, the Jet stream loses stability becoming wobbly, allowing more frequent exchange of masses of air between both cold and warm sides. (see more discussion and data at origin)
In order to contrast the accuracy of my approach with the atmospheric events being under observation, and with the encouragement from a brief exchange of emails with Jennifer Francis, in February 2015 I published a review over my own assessments:
“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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“That 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.” (see more discussion and data at origin)
Among many assessments, in April 2015 I analysed the situation over Greenland due to a resilient high pressure system:
- Matching Features Between Land Surface and Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on April 23, 2015
Two models, GFS (left) and ECMWF (right), forecast for the 25th April 2015 a High pressure enclosed over Greenland matching exactly its size.
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 %
Gravel road 12
Bare soil 17
Green grass 25
- Climatic events and Meteorological features rely on the amount of energy being incorporated into the atmosphere. This is a function dependent not only on the amount of energy being transferred but also on the composition and amount of particles and molecules transferring and carrying the energy through the atmosphere. In a volume of atmospheric space containing few molecules of gases (like the outer space) the transference of energy would be more difficult independently of the amount of energy being irradiated.
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.
On March 2015 I extended the assessments verifying previous arguments analysing atmospheric dynamics and the events observed through the winter of 2014/15. Such analysis was added as an upgrade into the publication “Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. (Upgraded 24th March 2015) ”
On January 2016 I compared my assessments over atmospheric dynamics and energy dissipation with the events observed through the winter 2015/16:
- From the publication Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. (29 Jan 2016) (source)
Since 2013, and after having decided to publish my new approach assessing the developments in the global circulation and associated climatic components, I have kept constantly updating those assessments. In such effort I have tried to integrate the new weather events identified in a constant discussion over the implications derived from considering synergistic interactions between them and the biotic components in our environment.
The previous publications pointed out above are among the 190 published in this blog (timeline here). All the publications are interconnected discussing synergies between all the components playing a role in the debate over environmental assessments, either as part of a conceptual framework or bringing analytical assessments over specific issues.
- European weather. Old News, Same News? by Diego Fdez-Sevilla January 15, 2016
So far the chain of events happening this year are following a common pattern with what we saw last two winters. First, downpours and strong winds, next, flooding, and after, periods of cold temp and snow. And everything shares a key point. They are “concentrated” in time, location and quantity. Also, pressure systems are developing moving across latitudes more frequently than the longitudinal patterns associated with the traditional belts described by Hadley cells in global circulation.
- Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. Posted on 29 January 2016 (link here)
- Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Posted on 3 March 2016 (link here)
- See more assessments at the timeline category.
Peer reviewed articles verifying previous assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog:
Previous Assessments and Recent Publications on Atmospheric Dynamics and Hadley Circulation:
- The 5th of May 2016 the AGU’s website made a joint release of a paper verifying previous assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog:
“A new analysis of 30 years of satellite data suggests that a previously observed trend of high altitude clouds in the mid-latitudes shifting toward the poles is caused primarily by the expansion of the tropics.”
The 6th of May I published a Post discussing the repercussion over the line of research presented in this blog: Climate and Hadley Circulation. Research Update May 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Posted 6 May 2016.
- The 11 July 2016 another article was published online by Nature offering assessments which verify those previously discussed in the line of research published in this blog:
“Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record” Nature(2016)doi:10.1038/nature18273. .
Abstract. Clouds substantially affect Earth’s energy budget by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by restricting emission of thermal radiation to space1. They are perhaps the largest uncertainty in our understanding of climate change, owing to disagreement among climate models and observational datasets over what cloud changes have occurred during recent decades and will occur in response to global warming2, 3. This is because observational systems originally designed for monitoring weather have lacked sufficient stability to detect cloud changes reliably over decades unless they have been corrected to remove artefacts4, 5. Here we show that several independent, empirically corrected satellite records exhibit large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and the 2000s that are similar to those produced by model simulations of climate with recent historical external radiative forcing. Observed and simulated cloud change patterns are consistent with poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest cloud tops at all latitudes. The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.
Previous Assessments and recent publications on Energy gradients:
- On June 9th 2016, Nature 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 sharing 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.
The 10th of June 2016 I published a Post discussing the repercussion over the line of research presented in this blog: The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
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.
(Update 15 Feb 2017)
- OSeptember 8, 2015 I published the article A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla). (also in pdf at researchgate).
Extending the line of research presented in the previous publications since 2013, this article includes the following assessment:
“Sept 8, 2015. I believe that the present weather events, altogether with the tornado seen in Venice on July, represent some of the new “Drops of Weather” coming over to say that the Summer, as we know it, is coming to an end.
The reason behind it seems to be the sporadic and unpredictable behaviour of the Jet stream, which not only is wobbly in latitude, but also in the vertical profile of the atmosphere. Accordingly, we can see that when it comes to lower levels from 300hPa induces alterations in the thermodynamical behaviour of the tropospheric circulation. In turn, when this cold air touches the lower level of our atmosphere, activates the energy accumulated in the Water vapour contained in it as latent heat, delivering new forms of energy; kinetic provoking strong winds, electrostatic generating lightnings and potential carried in the mass of all the water coming from its gaseous state into liquid or solid precipitation.
I have already discussed what is my theory about what it is happening that it is generating such a wobbly jet stream in latitude and altitude. This theory was published in a previous post and it points out the incorporation of masses of water vapour into polar latitudes as consequence of CO2 forcing as the cause wearing out the strength of the Polar Jet Stream.
I also have suggested that such incorporation of masses of water vapour into Polar Latitudes follow channels which are linked with persistent cyclonic events in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The present patterns seen in the circulation over the Pacific and the Atlantic are consistent with those proposed in this theory.”
News report by phys.org: “A new publication from Jan. 24, 2017 in the journal Nature Communications claims to be the first to explore the interaction between potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere—and offers a new perspective on what is happening with global warming.”
“Authors have found that the efficiency of Earth’s global atmosphere as a heat engine is increasing during the past four decades in response to climate change.” In this case, increased efficiency isn’t a good thing. It suggests more potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy—energy that is driving atmospheric movement – resulting in a greater potential for destructive storms in regions where the conversion takes place. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-analyses-energy-explanation-climate.html#jCp
(End update 15 Feb 2017)
(Start update 11 April 2017 2017 _1 of 2)
In regard with the dynamics seen over the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream in the recent years, there is a specific category in the whole line of research published in this blog since 2013 to be considered when evaluating new articles verifying their accuracy. Furthermore, the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream has been discussed extensively in previous publications and follow-ups in relation with “extreme climatic events” and “the influence of continentality” over atmospheric circulation (see categories top menu).
One of the previous publications in this blog, from Oct 2016, recapitulates some points discussed on previous assessments:
In 2014 the analysis of the scenario created by the erratic behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream became a theoretical proposal offering an explanation over the mechanisms driving the atmospheric developments observed.
Seeing how same developments repeat their configuration in space and time brings me to close a circle in the line of the research published in this blog over 170 publications addressing assessing the impact of transformations in the solid, liquid and gaseous phases of the energy flows driving our environment triggering a climatic drift.
In a nutshell I would resume my approach as follows:
The energy flows in our environment is formed by energy sources and sinks using the atmosphere as the medium through which energy is transferred between the liquid, solid and gaseous phases of the environment. The major change identified in geological times is the constant and increasing force behind the transformation of the structure and composition of all those phases due to human activities. Such transformation has altered the sources and sinks of energy as well as it has modified the conductance properties of the mediums transferring the energy contained in the Earth system. All the modifications carried by human activity reduce the capacity of environmental energy sinks, biotic systems, as well as introduce new sources of energy from all the activities which are applied in the development of our societies and industry.
The incapacity for the environment to use energy sinks against the energy being contained in the Earth system, altogether with the increase in thermal conductance of the atmosphere due to GHGs, and the increase in albedo due to land use and cover, increases the amount of energy being transferred within the system triggering an increase in turbulence, beginning within the less dense phase of the environment, the gaseous phase or atmosphere. Such energetic imbalance jeopardise the structural integrity of the atmospheric compartmentalization weakening the strength of those features built upon steep differences in energy gradients or thermal gradients (Jet Steams and Polar Vortex), and generating other resilient features which have no place where to dissipate their energy like blocking patterns, strong cyclonic profiles in altitude and storms able to persist in time and distances.
Ultimately, the dynamics of the atmosphere driving climatic temperatures and humid regimes in latitude and altitude would suffer an increase in the mixing ratio between masses of air otherwise kept isolated thanks to the compartmentalised nature of its previous configuration. The outcome from this evaluation points to an increase in the erratic behaviour of seasons and atmospheric dynamics. Neither global warming or global cooling being a “global trend”. Instead, the exchange of masses of air from mid-latitudes into polar latitudes will force displacements of air masses from high latitudes affecting the dynamics of the whole system without a predictive pattern other than following the thermal properties of the mediums dominating the local situation. Thus contrasts between land and oceans (see category Influence of continentality, and previous posts ref1 and ref2).
On March 27, 2017, a new publication claims that “an international team of climate scientists has found a connection between many extreme weather events and the impact climate change is having on the jet stream.”
Bob Berwyn, at InsideClimate News, Mar 27, 2017 published the news report
The culprit in the climate change associated with the Rossby waves is the decreasing temperature contrast between the Arctic and the tropics and between sea surface and land surface areas, the study finds. (follow link to see whole report and article)
(End update 11 April 2017 2017 _1 of 2)
Previous Assessments and Recent Publications on Statistical errors:
- The 3rd of September 2015 I published a dissertation addressing the limitations carried by statistical errors (error type I and II) when applying mean values and averages in assessing anomalies: What if, the relevant bit lies hidden on identifying the pattern behind similarities instead of trying to match anomalies? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted 3 September 2015.
Anomalies are standardised concepts. As such, and considering the limited capacity of perception that we can apply in modelling natural interconnections (lack of data and understanding in general of how to apply the data), they carry a very simple but relevant limitation. This limitation comes in the form of so called Type I and Type II errors.
All the Anomalies applied in climatic research have been “designed” to substitute the incapacity of identifying tangible “Thresholds”. In natural science, thresholds are those which define a change. But they are usually multivariate interdependent, and therefore, almost impossible to define accurately, and even less accessible to be modelled or predicted. Unless the magnitudes are too big, like being hit by a car makes finding the threshold of having something broken with a high probability and no Type I or II errors.
So, since thresholds are so complex to identify, there are side effects, indicators, which can be applied as conceptual “signals” which allow us to understand the expression of complex interactions otherwise invisible to our senses. Like trying to know if a infrasonic whistle works requires a dog giving us the “signal”.
The ENSO and the NAO are standardised indexes which have being designed and modelled statistically to frame in a tamed environment any possible reasoning. It seems that everything can be explained based on previous or predicted episodes of them but nothing can explain them. And that is where I see the conflict in the attitude applied to analyse, study and understand climatic developments base on “inexplicable” indexes.
In previous posts I have already discussed how “standardised” indexes (ENSO, NAO) and concepts (broken Polar Vortex is required to have a wobbly Jet Stream) have shown to be “limited”.
We can match episodes of “anomalies” with atmospheric events. A warmer ocean brings more humidity in the atmosphere of some regions so there is more rain, that is the “lighthouse” we can easily identify and follow. But we will need to find more ways of looking at things than that. We might need to stop fixing our attention into looking at the lighthouse and pay more attention into the difficult task of recognising the relevance of the “small”.
Anomalies are poor substitutes of absolute values giving thresholds. Useful for a while but limited in scope.
Following the line of research that I have designed in this blog I would expose one example of a threshold hidden in the anomalies.
Considering that CO2 induces increases of Water vapour in the atmosphere, those increments of water vapour would allow the atmosphere to carry more energy.
One first threshold being reached would come from the constant friction between subtropical and polar latitudes, and the global circulation at high altitudes. That would ultimately reduce thermal contrasts (thus barriers) and induce an expansion in the distribution of the water vapour around (and the energy carried by) the globe in latitude, longitude and altitude. That would alter the dynamic behaviour of the atmosphere and the weather patterns associated. So far, that is what I have proposed already in previous posts.
Another threshold in an imaginary scenario would come from adding a persistent pressure over the atmosphere to keep increasing its capacity to carry energy by water vapour with endless supply of CO2. Following that path there could be a moment in which CO2 might not be necessary any more to keep the feedback loop between the atmosphere sucking water and weather events releasing energy. Enough water vapour in the atmosphere might carry enough energy to keep the energy cycle Ocean-Atmosphere by a positive feedback loop, thanks to its characteristics as greenhouse gas. But of course, that is just too simple to be realistic (?). However, that kind of threshold would not be foreseen based on anomalies.
The 2nd March 2016 James Hansen and Makiko Sato. Published an article titled: “Regional climate change and national responsibilities”. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 3. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034009)
Abstract. Global warming over the past several decades is now large enough that regional climate change is emerging above the noise of natural variability, especially in the summer at middle latitudes and year-round at low latitudes. Despite the small magnitude of warming relative to weather fluctuations, effects of the warming already have notable social and economic impacts. Global warming of 2 °C relative to preindustrial would shift the ‘bell curve’ defining temperature anomalies a factor of three larger than observed changes since the middle of the 20th century, with highly deleterious consequences.
Previous Assessments and Recent Publications on Limitations Modelling Environmental Changes
On May 15, 2014 I discussed the limitations of modelling environmental changes in the publication: “The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) http://wp.me/p403AM-9M.
I used this publication to start several discussions over 10 different groups at LinkedIn and I used the title on those discussions:
– “Are we ever be ready to use a number to measure the stability of our environment before establishing how it works?”
Within the body of the publication in this blog I wrote things like, but not only:
I have experience in evaluating the limitations of monitoring environmental atmospheric conditions from fundamentally looking at limitations when monitoring meteorological parameters and biological atmospheric particle load and transport (pollen). From my research, the papers that I have found through my career as researcher, and my experience participating in debates, there is a general bias admitted in today’s environmental data coming from conventionalisms based on prioritising building data sets. This situation induce many studies to overlook the impact that the disparity of representativeness between monitoring locations incorporates in the interpretation of many correlations.
Those limitations are consciously present in my position about global climate variations. I am not in neither side, claiming in favour or against AGW. Actually, I would like to follow a side walk, trying to be apart from any already adopted preconception, trying to start from the bottom up and see which conclusions could be found following separated paths.
“We try to correlate increases in temperature with changes in our environment. That means looking at only parameters “knowingly” related with temperature. And this relation has to be direct in order to give the strongest correlations. The limitation that I see in this approach is that indirect effects from multivariable synergistic feedbacks are poorly considered.” Instead of following the already settled in stone conception of temperature as the parameter to be correlated with anything or nothing I want to explore the idea of considering temperature as a mere symptom. Why not make the question backwards? Based on what we already know, what could be the possible implications in our ecosystem derived from the broad range of changes induced in our environment?
The most difficult thing in environmental sciences is to recognise and characterize thresholds based on correlations. No correlation can explain and forecast or project the transition from a primitive thermodynamic geologically dominated system to the origin of biological processes. That transition changed the chemistry of the environment in the hydrosphere, landscape, soil weathering and atmosphere composition, affecting the thermodynamics of the whole system.
No correlation can explain and forecast or project the genetic drift in evolution. The transition from simple structures with anaerobic and not solar related metabolism to complex organisms oxygen and solar dependent changed the availability of major volumes of elements by releasing them from their complex molecules into water cycles, ground and air. And it is as much difficult to understand which environmental conditions and parameters define the thresholds that change the magnitude of forces and trigger the activation of new systems (biotic and abiotic).
Lets imagine water as an unknown substance and heat to represent the concept of what I see as our limitations in understanding environmental evolution. The characteristics (physic and chemical) of this substance are different between states from solid, liquid and gas. The major correlation defining the presence of those states is temperature and therefore, the force affecting changes is heat. The strength of any correlation between temperature and water is different for each state of the substance. And there are thresholds that break the correlations by defining changes in molecular organization (freezing and boiling points). But also other factors affect those correlations such as impurities (soluble substances) and environmental conditions such as pressure and surrounding water saturation.
Following this idea, I would take Celsius degrees and liquid water to represent the time scale that we apply in studying environmental correlations. Similarly, in our time scale of environmental data, we see what happens between heat and temperature from 20 to 80 C. We can see raising temperatures in water correlating with other parameters (mostly heat related), and yet, the limitations of our measurements (we only monitor a small fraction of what is going on in our ecosystem, mostly in urbanized areas) and our understanding of synergistic interactions, make our models short-sighted to foresee thresholds marking points of inflexion which might induce changes in the dominant role played by the forces we know, as it would happen in order to foresee what would happen increasing temperature of liquid water beyond 99ºC. Or instead of temperature by increasing pressure, or instead Tª and Pressure by adding soluble particles or instead of … Are we ever be ready to use a number to measure the stability of our environment before establishing how it works? Would not it be like building models assuming liquid water beyond 100ºC? What are we measuring? How much amount of “something” or “everything” can the environment take without other numbers changing? What are we going to measure in order to define the “predictability” of our environment when this environment is constantly absorbing “unpredicted” fast paced alterations?
Let see simple numbers. How many mechanisms of resilience have we managed to identify in our environment at local and global scale? How many perturbations in our environment have already been identified by being linked with those mechanisms? Are we going to measure thresholds defining the limited capacity of those mechanisms to absorb perturbations?
Our environment, as we know it, is the result of many forces (internal and external, biotic and abiotic) exerting pressure against each other. The self regulated – constant adjustment between variations in those forces has created, as a result, the conditions that have been suitable for our ecosystem and ourselves to develop. And we have taken for granted that those conditions that we know, are regulated by forces so strong that anthropogenic pressure might not be “statistically significant” to interfere by any means. What we still don´t fully understand is how difficult or easy might be to interfere in the adjustment existent between those forces. It might be enough to allow one of those forces to gain strength over the others just to be the cause for a change in the adjustment.
In ecology as in biology, what it gives a 99% significant correlation, looking at causes having an impact over the health state of a system, does not come from what attacks the functionality of mechanisms of resilience, in biology called the immune system. Those threats do not aim to the organism existence, they just limit the capacity of defence against other threats. A 99% significant correlation comes from what threats the existence of the system by overcoming the mechanisms of resilience or just, the lack of them. In that way, anthropogenic pressure over the functionality of the environment might not give ever a significant correlation when compared with other forces. For example, tree rings will always be defined primarily by solar activity, however, one day it might become relevant to understand the role played in the ecosystem by the type of tree, the location of those trees, their number and the stress factors affecting their metabolism.
There is a chance of that we might be looking in the wrong direction. Threatening the state of our ecosystem is a different matter that threatening the capacity of this ecosystem to absorb perturbations “in a manner suitable to our capacities for adaptation“. The question following this idea is about, what would happen if the global environment loses flexibility to absorb unusual variation from all the forces playing part in our climate?
The behaviour of the atmospheric circulation (climate) might well generate an indirect indication of fluctuations in forces being part of the mechanisms driving our climate. The correlations might also point to connections between Solar activity and localised events (AO/NAO/PDO/ENSO …). However, several studies have already pointed out that the atmospheric circulation, and potentially the oscillations associated, are also sensitive to the influence of established ecosystems (oceanic and continental). Thus, activities changing the environmental performance of those ecosystems become part of the whole feedback network.
Measuring singularities might give us numbers. However, if we want to find a number, a significant number which represents the answer to all our environmental questions, I may well take that the answer is 42. What I am missing here, is not about the value of understanding numbers, but the meaningfulness of questions … And please, don´t get me wrong, I am aware of that I might be so off topic, or redundant, or biased, or … that, my own point of view might be a meaningless one. I leave it open for debate… I just want to make a point.
On February 17, 2016 a new article was published claiming that “Researchers find the tipping point between resilience and collapse in complex systems”.
Using statistical physics, network theorists have developed the “first-ever tool” to identify whether systems are in danger of failing.
“The failure of a system can lead to serious consequences, whether to the environment, economy, human health, or technology,” said Barabasi, Robert Gray Dodge Professor and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Physics. “But there was no theory that considered the complexity of the networks underlying those systems–that is, their many parameters and components. That made it very difficult, if not impossible, to predict the systems’ resilience in the face of disturbances to those parameters and components. Our tool, for the first time, enables those predictions.”
“Barzel, a postdoctoral fellow in Barabasi’s lab who collaborated on the research and is now at Bar-Ilan University, draws an elegant analogy between the role of temperature in identifying that tipping point in a pot of water and the single parameter–a temperature equivalent, as it were–that their tool can uncover to identify the tipping point in any complex system.
Consider: 100 degrees Celsius is the tipping point for water changing from liquid to vapor. Think of liquid as the desirable state for the system and vapor as the undesirable one, signifying collapse. Millions of parameters and components quantify what is going on within that pot of water, from the relationship of the water molecules to one another to their speed and the chemical bonds linking their elements.
As the water heats up, those parameters and components continually change. Measuring those multitudinous changes over time–a microscopic approach to assessing the water’s state–would be impossible. How, then, are we to know when the water is reaching the threshold that divides the desirable (liquid) state from the undesirable (vapor) state?”
“We collect all the data and map it to one number, a universal resilience curve,” said Gao, a postdoc in Barabasi’s lab. “That’s the only number we need in order to quantify whether the system is on the desirable or undesirable side of the threshold, or even approaching the danger zone.”
On February 23, 2016 I discussed the implications of this new publication in the line of research published in this blog: Do You Believe in the Value of Your Work? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Published on 23 February 2016
(Start Update 11 April 2017 _1 of 2)
In regard to the process of evaluating a formulation expressing the impact from anthropogenic activity over climatic developments a previous assessment in the line of research shared in this blog contains:
From an environmental point of view I understand that any ecosystem has a limited capacity to absorb perturbations. Transforming the environment triggers an impact not only over what the new environment produces, but also, over the capacity for the environment to absorb perturbations (resilience).
So, how much “instability” either triggered by changes in Solar radiation, Planetary positioning, Oceanic circulation and Atmospheric composition is being absorbed by our functional global environment?
how much transformation can absorb our environment before it gets overwhelmed-dysfunctional (overstretch) allowing magnifying factors to stretch the extremes in naturally induced oscillations either triggered by changes in Solar radiation, Planetary positioning, Oceanic circulation and Atmospheric composition?
Through the time line occupied by man, among all the forces interacting with our environment, only those naturally induced behave drawing patterns describing pendulum like oscillations in their magnitude. However, the pressure enforced over the environment by human development is constant and increasing.
In a mathematical representation of all the forces interacting with our environment anthropogenic transformation might be the only constant among all the variables. Accordingly, considering time, and without a natural variable suddenly adopting an overwhelming magnitude, makes this constant force the one setting the direction in the evolution of the whole system. That is because time has a bipolar repercussion in the magnitude of naturally induced variables such as Solar activity, tilt, PDO, (positive in one phase of the oscillation and negative in the other phase, that’s what makes them variables) meanwhile, the transformation of the environment constantly accumulates, always in the same direction over time.
Taking past periods of time as reference to define today’s environmental behaviour, like the Holocene, implies to assume that time has played a neutral factor in the development of the environment and its behaviour absorbing perturbations. Accordingly, the behaviour of our environment and the forces involved have oscillated pivoting around a neutral point of equilibrium under repeated patterns of change. Deviations from the neutral (or equilibrium) zone are understood as the consequence of extreme variations in one or more natural variables being the event independent from time. Accordingly, because it is assumed that naturally induced extreme oscillations are not the result of an accumulation in the dominant directionality of a force but as part of a cycle. However, when it is incorporated an unidirectional constant force over time, as it is environmental transformation, the pivoting point defining equilibrium in the repercussion from natural oscillations risks to get displaced unidirectionally over time.
Under similar extreme magnitudes of oscillation given for a natural variable, as it could be Solar minima in the Holocene and at the present, time makes all the difference. The type of repercussion that we might identify in our system from facing natural induced oscillations with or without an environment with the capacity to absorb perturbations and regenerate itself is a question of uncertainty. However, under my point of view, the level of uncertainty is linked with the role played by the impact that the development of the Human species throughout time has over the capacity of the environment to maintain its functionality.
On February 2017, a new study was presented claiming that “For the first time, researchers have developed a mathematical equation to describe the impact of human activity on the earth, finding people are causing the climate to change 170 times faster than natural forces.”
Melissa Davey wrote a news report at the Guardian incorporating the comments from the authors explaining their paper:
For the first time, researchers have developed a mathematical equation to describe the impact of human activity on the earth, finding people are causing the climate to change 170 times faster than natural forces.
The equation was developed in conjunction with Professor Will Steffen, a climate change expert and researcher at the Australian National University, and was published in the journal The Anthropocene Review.
The authors of the paper wrote that for the past 4.5bn years astronomical and geophysical factors have been the dominating influences on the Earth system. The Earth system is defined by the researchers as the biosphere, including interactions and feedbacks with the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and upper lithosphere.
But over the past six decades human forces “have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth system,” the authors wrote, giving rise to a period known as the Anthropocen.
“Human activities now rival the great forces of nature in driving changes to the Earth system,” the paper said.
Steffen and his co-researcher, Owen Gaffney, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, came up with an “Anthropocene Equation” to determine the impact of this period of intense human activity on the earth.
Explaining the equation in New Scientist, Gaffney said they developed it “by homing in on the rate of change of Earth’s life support system: the atmosphere, oceans, forests and wetlands, waterways and ice sheets and fabulous diversity of life”.
“For four billion years the rate of change of the Earth system has been a complex function of astronomical and geophysical forces plus internal dynamics: Earth’s orbit around the sun, gravitational interactions with other planets, the sun’s heat output, colliding continents, volcanoes and evolution, among others,” he wrote.
“In the equation, astronomical and geophysical forces tend to zero because of their slow nature or rarity, as do internal dynamics, for now. All these forces still exert pressure, but currently on orders of magnitude less than human impact.”
According to Steffen these forces have driven a rate of change of 0.01 degrees Celsius per century.
Greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans over the past 45 years, on the other hand, “have increased the rate of temperature rise to 1.7 degrees Celsius per century, dwarfing the natural background rate,” he said.
This represented a change to the climate that was 170 times faster than natural forces.
“We are not saying the astronomical forces of our solar system or geological processes have disappeared, but in terms of their impact in such a short period of time they are now negligible compared with our own influence,” Steffen said.
“Crystallising this evidence in the form of a simple equation gives the current situation a clarity that the wealth of data often dilutes.
“What we do is give a very specific number to show how humans are affecting the earth over a short timeframe. It shows that while other forces operate over millions of years, we as humans are having an impact at the same strength as the many of these other forces, but in the timeframe of just a couple of centuries.
“The human magnitude of climate change looks more like a meteorite strike than a gradual change.”
Gaffney and Steffen wrote that while the Earth system had proven resilient, achieving millions of years of relative stability due to the complex interactions between the Earth’s core and the biosphere, human societies would be unlikely to fare so well.
(End Update 11 April 2017 _1 of 2)
Previous Assessments and recent publications on the role of Aerosols in Atmospheric Dynamics
The 17th February 2014 I discussed the role played by aerosols in the atmosphere as an indispensable component to drive atm. water vapour dynamics and cloud formation: Met Office. The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK (Feb 2014) (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Published on 17 Februry 2014
Met Office has published a paper that documents the record-breaking weather and flooding, considers the potential drivers and discusses whether climate change contributed to the severity of the weather and its impacts.
Back in Nov I wrote a post and discussed about the role of water vapour in atmospheric events (follow the link to see the post and comments at the bottom of the page:
Based on the publication from the Met Office I want to extend my previous evaluation of the role played by water in climatic events with the following comment in the subject:
What about studies looking at alterations in the role played by water in the atmosphere (absorbing heat and adiabatic behaviour inducing weather events) due to interaction with pollutants? I would like to know about studies looking at not only the increase of water vapour due to increases in temperature but also about how the interaction of pollutants with water could affect its properties throughout evaporation, condensation processes as well as in adiabatic processes.
I would like to explore the validity of an idea that is coming around my mind lately about the combined effect of:
In one hand, the effect of increasing amounts of aerosols leading to an increased capacity of the atmosphere to retain water. “Water drops in polluted cases are up to 50 percent smaller than in clean skies. The smaller size impedes the formation of rain clouds and the falling of rain, (http://phys.org/news169474977.html#jCp)” and in another hand, greenhouse gases retaining heat allow the atmosphere to expand retaining more water vapour.
Could the combine effect be part of the strong effect described as “The ‘buckling’ of the jet stream over the Pacific and North America became much more pronounced during January 2014, as the precipitation anomaly over Indonesia and the West Pacific strengthened? A notable feature of this anomalous area of tropical precipitation is its northwards extent into the winter hemisphere where it is able to interact with the North Pacific jet and generate Rossby waves that propagate along the jet and act to reinforce the huge meander of the jet stream off the west coast of North America.
Throughout my career I have studied and discussed the influence of atmospheric water vapour in the aerodynamic behaviour of one particle being part of the aerosol, pollen grains. In my research I already pointed out the need for further research about the implications of the biological atmospheric particle load by being involved in climate events through the microphysics of cloud formation due to the nuclei drop activity of such particles.
Furthermore, I have studied the amount of pollen grains contained in a gram of pollen released outdoors from related species of the same genus (unpublished yet). It has been estimated that a birch tree releases more than 5.5 billion grains over a single year, alder 7.2 billion, and an oak less at 0.6 billion grains. Spruce also produced about 5.5 billion grains in a year. Cereal rye grass contained 4.25 million pollen grains per inflorescence.
Additionally, I also performed research about the impact that environmental heat increase and retention has in the atmospheric biological load due to the urban heat island effect. The results point out that the biological cycles of the biota are altered increasing the duration of their “pollen release” period. The scenario created by the urban heat island effect has been already applied to extrapolate global climatic alterations in the biota suggesting an increase in plant performance (metabolism) inducing more bioaerosol released into the atmosphere.
Putting together my own experience in researching bioaerosols, my understanding of environmental processes and the findings by others I find enough dots connected to be very alert about the synergistic effects that the biota play and suffers as part of the whole system. For more about this topic follow the comments below and the post Resilience in our environment.
A new study published on June 13, 2016 addresses the role of aerosols on convective developments updating the state of the previous assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog.
According to news.utexas.edu “the study, published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on June 13, is the first to address the impact that aerosol particles have on the lifespans of large thunderstorm systems called mesoscale convective systems.”
“An abundance of aerosol particles in the atmosphere can increase the lifespans of large storm clouds by delaying rainfall, making the clouds grow larger and live longer, and producing more extreme storms when the rain finally does come, according to new research from The University of Texas at Austin.”
“A cloud particle is basically water and aerosols. It’s like a cell. The aerosol is the nucleus and the water is the cytoplasm,” said lead author Sudip Chakraborty, who recently received his Ph.D. from the Jackson School. “The more aerosols you have, the more cells you get. And if you have more water, you should get more rain.”
Previous Assessments and recent publications on the role of changes in Land Use over Atmospheric Dynamics
The 07 May 2015 I discussed the implications from facing the level of transformation that our environment has suffered globally in a publication entitled: Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
The continuous interference from Human “care” has led to the modification of animal and plants behaviour, geographical distribution, size of population, biodiversity and genetic pool. The performance of soils have been changed in some places in order to produce more, and in other places just from alterations in Land use and cover as well as modifications in the Water cycles due to deviations and compartmentalization.
The implications raising from such kind of alterations are directly linked with the Natural balance established between all different parts of every ecosystem before Human activity started to impose such pressure.
And there are two major areas demanding attention:
- The more Natural systems depend on “human care” to exist, the more are the resources and Energy required to maintain them. When at the same time there is room for discussion on which Natural systems perform better thanks to Human interference (e.g. GMOs, Oregon water defences). Is it ever going to be less Energy demanding to develop, manufacture, maintain and repair technology designed to absorb and fix Atmospheric CO2 than trees?
- The transformation induced in the Natural system from the activity of Domesticating Nature “to fulfil Human Needs” goes all the way around the chain of synergistic interrelations existent between Atmospheric Composition; Oceanic, Inland and Atmospheric Water circulation and quality as well as changes over albedo due to changes in Land Use and Cover (Following images show Land Use change. Notice that when looking at desserts, constant green means no change in land use).
Altogether, those transformations become part of the Energy flows dominating climatic events and atmospheric behaviour.
The demands of Energy required for our adaptation to the surrounding environment relies on its stability. An unstable environment demands more energy and resources from humans. But the stability of our environment depends on the stability of its structure and its resources in order to maintain a strong level of resilience against perturbations.
So, how much perturbation can our environment absorb before it looses the capacity to absorb interferences from external forces and becomes unstable?
A new paper published on 05 August 2016 supports previous assessments in the line of research published in this blog pointing out that “land use change is a significant component of the global climate.”
“Effective radiative forcing from historical land use change”
The effective radiative forcing (ERF) from the biogeophysical effects of historical land use change is quantified using the atmospheric component of the Met Office Hadley Centre Earth System model HadGEM2-ES. The global ERF at 2005 relative to 1860 (1700) is −0.4 (−0.5) Wm−2, making it the fourth most important anthropogenic driver of climate change over the historical period (1860–2005) in this model and larger than most other published values. The land use ERF is found to be dominated by increases in the land surface albedo, particularly in North America and Eurasia, and occurs most strongly in the northern hemisphere winter and spring when the effect of unmasking underlying snow, as well as increasing the amount of snow, is at its largest. Increased bare soil fraction enhances the seasonal cycle of atmospheric dust and further enhances the ERF. Clouds are shown to substantially mask the radiative effect of changes in the underlying surface albedo. Coupled atmosphere–ocean simulations forced only with time-varying historical land use change shows substantial global cooling (dT = −0.35 K by 2005) and the climate resistance (ERF/dT = 1.2 Wm−2 K−1) is consistent with the response of the model to increases in CO2 alone. The regional variation in land surface temperature change, in both fixed-SST and coupled atmosphere–ocean simulations, is found to be well correlated with the spatial pattern of the forced change in surface albedo. The forcing-response concept is found to work well for historical land use forcing—at least in our model and when the forcing is quantified by ERF. Our results suggest that land-use changes over the past century may represent a more important driver of historical climate change then previously recognised and an underappreciated source of uncertainty in global forcings and temperature trends over the historical period.
Andrews, T., Betts, R.A., Booth, B.B.B. et al. Clim Dyn (2016). doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3280-7
Time ago I was told that in order for others to be able of helping me I should tell them that I needed their help and how they could help me.
I have tried to keep my research as a priority in my publications and expose my thoughts only as an exercise of analytical thinking trying to make them useful in a broad debate instead of focusing on my own personal situation (not always successfully you may say).
However, sometimes I have addressed personal situations when I considered that thresholds were reached. And I hope that such public exposition will show how difficult, weak and sometimes twisted is the world of science in comparison with the idealised concept of PhDs, like me, living in ivory towers.
The present situation marks a threshold in the lack of professionalism and ethics in the scientific community. Not only I see work being produced by institutions tracked from IP visits mimicking parts of my own work without recognition. Couple of weeks ago one publication of this blog received a visit from a law firm. The publication is Probability in the atmospheric circulation dictating the Weather (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) posted on 15th January 2015. It is only a question of time that more publications will appear claiming new innovative ways of adding a contribution in the state of knowledge from institutions, which have visited this blog and replicate the same line of approach developed here, without any acknowledgement. And if you wonder about the legitimacy of my allegations, before asking for any SEO monitoring, you just have to question how many articles can you find about changes in Hadley circulation highlighting its expansion in latitude and altitude in the last years and why suddenly two raise within just two months of difference…
I need help. I have reached a point in which, my work, needs acknowledgement and, myself, to find a sustainable way of life, inside or outside science, in research, communication or any field where you find my attitudes with potential to be implemented. If you can help me in any of those two aspects I will appreciate it.
If you are among those who believe in getting involved in fighting for what you believe, and you believe in the value of my work, my work needs acknowledgement. I don´t ask for money (yet), neither for a petty pat on the back. Just be truthful to yourself as I try to myself.
I keep constantly looking into new developments and info in related topics. Since every person reaching my publications are interested in the same subjects, I would appreciate that you leave a comment or use attribution to my work when you find it influencing yours. Either through inspiration, data or methodology.
So please, get involved in my effort and join me, don´t exclude me from what it should be a team’s effort.
At the end of the day, and our lives, each one of us choose what we want to be recognised for.
The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.
In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com
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.
Since 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.
- New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on October 21, 2014. http://wp.me/p403AM-k3
- Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on November 14, 2014. http://wp.me/p403AM-mt
- State of the Polar Vortex. Broken? From 29 Nov 2014 to 5th Jan 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla). Posted on November 29, 2014. http://wp.me/p403AM-o7
- Gathering data to make visible the invisible (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on December 22, 2014. http://wp.me/p403AM-pN
- Probability in the atmospheric circulation dictating the Weather (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on January 15, 2015. http://wp.me/p403AM-rm
- Meteorological Outlook Feb 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on February 7, 2015. http://wp.me/p403AM-sU
- Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Posted on February 10, 2015. http://wp.me/p403AM-to
- Drops of Weather. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 7, 2015
- Steering climate´s course (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 27, 2015
- Climate. Looking at the forest for the trees (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 9, 2015
- Matching Features Between Land Surface and Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 23, 2015
- Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 7, 2015
- A roller-coaster of temperatures in South Europe. Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 14, 2015
- Talking about climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 12, 2015
- News from an Ecosystem (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 20, 2015
- In climate it is becoming Less probable to not have a High probability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 29, 2015
- Drinking from the source (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 5, 2015
- Communication takes more than just publishing thoughts. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 9, 2015
- Extreme climatic events, implications for projections of species distributions and ecosystem structure (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 18, 2015
- The scope of Environmental Science and scientific thought. From Thought-driven to Data-driven, from Critical Thinking to Data Management. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 26, 2015
- Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)July 2, 2015
- Lateral thinking. From Micro to Macro (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)July 4, 2015
- Something for the curious minds. Climate and Streamlines (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)July 17, 2015
- Solar Activity and Human Activity, Settling Their Environmental Liability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)July 24, 2015
- Atmospheric composition and thermal conductivity? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)August 6, 2015
- Latitudinal barriers and typhoons (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)August 13, 2015
- The Earth is Ticking (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)August 20, 2015
- What if, the relevant bit lies hidden on identifying the pattern behind similarities instead of trying to match anomalies? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)September 3, 2015
- A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla).September 8, 2015
- Sensing Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)September 22, 2015
- InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla)September 30, 2015
- Arctic Intake of Water Vapour (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)October 7, 2015
- SST Anomalies and Heat Waves. Are They Not All Just Heat Displacements? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)October 16, 2015
- Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)October 21, 2015
- Follow-up on Arctic circulation 30 Oct 2015 ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)October 30, 2015
- There is Ice or Frost In Antarctica? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)November 5, 2015
- Starts Raining Drops of Winter at Mid-Latitudes. The new Autumn? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)November 10, 2015
- Press release. Ask NASA (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)November 12, 2015
- Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)November 19, 2015
- What Is Wrong With The Concept “Bio”? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)November 26, 2015
- Energy. Looking For Sources of Something We Waste. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)December 3, 2015
- SOILS. The Skeleton Holding The Muscle On Our Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)December 9, 2015
- Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)December 11, 2015
- Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)December 18, 2015
- New insides on old concepts (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)December 23, 2015
- Atmospheric Dynamics And Shapes (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)January 13, 2016
- European weather. Old News, Same News? by Diego Fdez-SevillaJanuary 15, 2016
- Observational events on atmospheric dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed over Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.January 29, 2016
- North American Weather. Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)January 20, 2016
- Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.January 29, 2016
- (updated 11-18 Feb2016) Polar Vortex, Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)February 4, 2016
- Forecasting Past Events. Snow Coming to Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)February 12, 2016
- Do You Believe in the Value of Your Work? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)February 23, 2016
- Forecasts For Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)February 25, 2016
- Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 3, 2016
- Tangled in Words. Atmospheric Dynamics, Stefan Boltzmann Calculations and Energy Balance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 10, 2016
- Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 22, 2016
- Plant growth, CO2, Soil and Nutrients. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)March 31, 2016
- Atmospheric Dynamics, GHG’s, Thermal Conductivity and Polar Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 6, 2016
- Feedback. Have Your Say. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 14, 2016
- Plant an Idea and Then a Tree… But Which Ones? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 22, 2016
- (updated 28/April/2016) Severe weather warning 27 April 2016 USA (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)April 28, 2016
- Research Update May 2016 (by Diego Fdez-sevilla)May 6, 2016
- Scientifically Challenged (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 12, 2016
- Another roller-coaster of temperatures in South Europe. Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 13, 2015May 13, 2016
- Our Environment. One Vision and Many Thoughts. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 20, 2016
- Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)May 26, 2016
- When Temperature Becomes Something Else (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 30, 2016
- Settled Science (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 9, 2016
- The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla)June 10, 2016
- Who has the right and the responsibility to discuss Climate as a topic of debate? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)June 20, 2016
- Snap shot of a day 22 June 2016. Follow-up on previous research over atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)June 22, 2016
- Atmospheric mixing. Indian Basin June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)July 1, 2016