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

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

By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. CV english and españolResume.

(last update April 2017. 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. “Blackto refer to first person, in present and “Blue” to first person in past, referring to previous publications.Green”, third person email, and Maroon”, 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)


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 follow link 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 

Dear Francis,

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.


New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on 21 October 2014. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440)

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 14 November 2014. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488)

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

(- Prof. Francis) “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.(was she right on her assessment over my take?)

Francis communication

Francis communication

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)  I took the challenge of generating my own analyses in in real time and in a weekly basis time-frame. Between Oct 2013 and July 2017 more than 200 assessments have been published in this blog supporting the line of research proposed (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 sample listing centres visiting this blog on the right side of this blog).

Filling In Finding Out Gaps Around by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD July 2016

Stats Oct 2013-July 2016. “Filling In Finding Out Gaps Around” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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.

The validation over my work that I could not find from Jennifer Francis, and neither from peered reviewed publications in 2014, has already started to be published in scientific journals. Some of those, addressing specific points highlighted throughout my research, but I have lost any hope to see them pointing back to my research


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, I apply a different approach and analyses giving as a result a different interpretation over the meaning of the factors and results obtained. The theory of 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 that increases in temp at the Arctic is 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 propose 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 mechanisms involving changes throughout the whole atmosphere, interacting throughout all levels of the ecosystem’s stratification (land, oceans and atmosphere, biotic and none biotic). Accordingly, the theory of Artic Amplification is just too narrow in location and too short in scope, limited in considering wider synergistic interactions to be applied in the theory here proposed, going no further than just as the result of the weathering effect exerted by warmer mid-latitudes pushing towards the Poles.

Continuity developing  a line of research.

After 12 years studying the synergistic relationship between Atmospheric dynamics and Biological processes of anemophilous plants in the field of Aerobiology, in 2013 I focused my efforts into designing a new approach analysing climatic dynamics. Through the line of research generated I started observing atmospheric dynamics in real time. The assessments resultant point to an atmosphere behaving as a medium containing an increasing amount of energy. The conclusions reached from this line of research identify the source for such scenario the indirect impact resultant from an increasing conc of CO2 enhancing the GHG’s effect which allows more water vapour to contain, transport and release energy throughout atmospheric latitudes and altitudes.

In Oct 2014 I published what is my interpretation over the actual developments in atmospheric dynamics and climatic drift:

New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on October 21, 2014. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440

“The theory that I have developed follows “in alignment” with the work published previously by scientists  Judah CohenMasato 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:

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:

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. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

“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:

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

Total Square What do you see Square What do you see

Questions and answers

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

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

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

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

Commonly reported Albedo values from different surface types.

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

Synergistic interactions exist between:

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

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

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

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, PhD. (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:

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.

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.

  • 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 of having this paper validating previous assessments 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.

(Beginning Update 15 Feb 2017)

Extending the line of research presented in 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 newDrops 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 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:

(End update 15 Feb 2017)


Previous Assessments and recent publications on Polar Jet Stream:

(Start update 11 April 2017 2017 _1 of 2)

In regard with the dynamics being seen over the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream in the recent years, there is a specific category in the line of research published in this blog. The behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream has been discussed extensively in previous publications adding posterior follow-ups in relation with “extreme climatic events” and “the influence of continentality” over the atmospheric circulation (see categories at the top menu).

One of the previous publications in this blog, from Oct 2016, recapitulates some points discussed on previous assessments:

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

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:

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.

Error I and II

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.

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.)

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 _2 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:

Debating Climate, Environment and Planetary evolution. Define your position. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on

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?

And, consequently,

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 _2 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, (” 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.

Aerodynamics_of_pollen_grains_involved_in_sampling_efficiency. Thesis_by_Diego_Fernandez-Sevilla (2007)

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.

Assessment between pollen seasons in areas with different urbanization level related to local vegetation sources and differences in allergen exposure. Aerobiologia, Vol 26-1, 1-14. (2010)

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 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, PhD)

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).

Land use change Compilation by Diego FdezSevilla Publication Domesticating Nature

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” Richard A. BettsBen B. B. BoothChris D. JonesGareth S. Jones

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


Previous Assessments and recent publications on the behaviour of Tropical Cyclones.

On I discussed the implications of not paying enough attention to those events considered mild under statistical criteria in the publication Statistical Significance and The Scary Side of Being Mild (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD). As part of this publication t was addressed the scenario which based on previous research would foresee the behaviour of TCs:

In my assessments I have defended that the increase in the energy pool at mid-latitudes would ultimately create an scenario with an overcharged atmosphere. That would reduce the contrasts with which to create and maintain stability in the structure required to condense energy in singular events, like hurricanes. Giving more relevance to the single contrast between Ocean/continental masses. However, the opening of the Arctic circulation through a weak Jet Stream would reduce the pressure in the containment absorbing the condensation of energy at midlatitudes, expanding into a new volume.

Accordingly, hadley circulation gets affected generating new patterns of turbulence at the ITCZ as well as it gets influenced Arctic mixing zones with lower latitudes.

In this scenario TCs are generated under an increase in the mixing ratio of an unstable atmospheric circulation dominated by kinetic energy transferred by water vapour thanks to GHGs, and immersed in an overcharged atmosphere with no place where to diffuse its energy, becoming resilient as long as they stay over the ocean. So they endure like a piece of an ice rock in cold water.

About Sea Surface Temperatures, my assessments take SST as subsequent conditions driven by wind shear. So the interaction between masses of air in circulation allowes or inhibits SST developments. Once the scenario is built on SST this becomes a “battle field” conditioning the subsequent interaction between the following masses of air and the characteristics of the “grounds” where the game will be played (sort of speak). Like the effect of the ice conditions in an ice hockey match.  

June 6, 2018. A combination of publications from several institutions like NOAA and National Center for Atmospheric Research, show to  support previous assessments in the line of research published in this blog:

National Geographic Society. Hurricanes Are Moving Slower—And That’s a Huge Problem. By Craig Welch. PUBLISHED June 6, 2018

Tropical cyclones, including hurricanes and typhoons, are now crawling across the planet at a slower pace than they did decades ago, dragging out and amplifying their devastation, new research published Wednesday shows. At the same time, related research published just last month suggests that warming temperatures from climate change will slow storms more in the future. Taken together, these two studies suggest that climate change is already increasing the dangers posed by hurricanes and typhoons in far more ways than previously thought, and it will continue to compound many of the hazards, especially the threat of severe flooding.”

Personal thoughts

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).

Ivory Towers Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD

My Ivory Tower. The Open access computer room at my local Library. Ourense-Spain.

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 academia and 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.

My work needs acknowledgement from those who find it of value so it can be sustained by itself instead of having me fighting for its recognition. But the acknowledgement that I am talking about is not just a facebook share or linkedin like. Those actions are of help since they call the attention from others over my work so the more people is aware of it more difficult is for others to perform copycats. But real acknowledgement involves to share at your workspace with colleagues, friends and in your own professional work output. Without a position in an institution performing research I can not publish in scientific journals. Without articles published in scientific journals my candidature is rejected in selection processes for jobs at research institutions. So acknowledgement on my work seems to be the only way to break the circle. (I am open to receive comments with a different or better advice).

The significance of my blog and my words on it are limited by the level of confidence that it is applied by the reader to the origin of those words. So I would like from you to share with me, publicly or through my email d.fdezsevilla(at)

  • What it is the level of confidence that you get from my research?
  • Would you consider my work worthy of being considered a contribution in any professional field?
  • Would you give it consideration in your professional career or personal life if there would be a case?
  • Which place in our society do you think that my work is worthy to reach by means, just social media and general knowledge or higher levels of responsibility and discussion? and,
  • Among whom do you think that my capabilities would be worthy to be part of?
  • Which image about the level of seniority is projected for the author through the blog’s posts?

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.

Personal Note

Silence is Complicity

Despite the numerous visits that I can track to my publications there is a wall of silence built around it which seems to be made by the same scientists from whom I was seeking an opinion.

There is no acknowledgement over its contribution and neither criticism. It is like if silence would cover the existence of contact. And yet, there are 4 years of recorded silence hold at the other end of the line.

After performing an analytical review from IP identification for the year 2016, a sample of the number and type of institutions from where visitors have arrived at publications in this blog can be seen in the right column of the blog.

Another example of level of reach achieved from this publications, thought followed by a silent attitude, can be seen in the statistics from LinkedIn, e.g.:

Genuine Originality

In February 21, 2014 I wrote my first assessment over climatic alterations pointing out the need to focus the attention over the enhanced capacity of the atmosphere to contain water vapour and the repercussion over energetic dynamics through the atmosphere.

February 21, 2014 Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27974.98884In our global ecosystem, there is a debate about if there has been an increase in heat or temperature. Which would be the mechanisms of resilience in our global environment working to absorb or release those increases in heat or temperature? I would go with water as the heat/energy carrier and the weather systems as the physical mechanics to redistribute and releaseheat/energyLike stirring a spoon to cold down your soup. So I like to see the use of “storage of energy by the climate system” used to determine the range of climate perturbations in the IPCC report on Climate.

In order to ensure the veracity of my claims over its original day of publication and content, this link points to the web archive record of it. Also available at the blog with updated links to posterior content:

On October 21, 2014 I published my theory describing the mechanisms involved and some of the repercussions derived:

October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440“Based on my theory, Greenhouse gases store energy which leads to an increase in global temperature. This increase in T, altogether with synergistic effects of aerosols, allows more water vapor to be contained in the atmosphere, which consequently adds more energy into the atmosphere in form of latent heat and kinetic energy.”

In this publication in my blog I offered in a nutshell what it was my assessment about the global state of the atmospheric dynamics, the climatic implications for the environment and the restrictions behind modelling. At the time it might seem like clatter in the echo chamber of things. Even in Dec 2014 Prof. Jennifer Francis replied to me claiming that

many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research”

But furthermore, she acknowledged her own distant position and lack of understanding over my line of research by claiming that:

“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.”

(email exchange in full here)

Following the challenge offered by Jennifer , “statements supported by published (or your own) analysis”, throughout the next three years I looked at all of my arguments embedded in those little phrases, looking for methods and sustainable analysis capable of building a message strong enough to make them worth of attention. I have sliced each argument in individual assessments in order to address their significant meaning. Now that the project has gone through all those aspects offering assessments for each one separately and as a whole, I believe that this little piece of writing will recover the original meaning with which it was intended.

All following publications are just different attempts to describe real time developments showing links with my ideas.

In 2013 I shared my views on Climate. Between 2014 and 2016 I shared analyses over real time developments in order to validate the hypothesis behind my conclusions. After 2016 I incorporated the process of validating those against time by re-publishing them in contrast with the developments seen in the following years in order to evaluate its potential representing a pattern. My activity at LinkedIn is complementary to the line of research published at the blog in order to expose it for an open review. Simultaneously I include publications at ResearchGate generating a DOI as part of the portfolio associated with the line of research.


February 10, 2015 (UPGRADED 24th March2015) Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. ResearchgateDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

Throughout more than 200 analyses (see timeline pageor categories at the top of the menu)

March 23, 2017 Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33915.82726

… 2018 so far


The validation over my work that I could not find from Jennifer Francis, and neither from peered reviewed publications in 2014, has already started to be published in scientific journals. Some of those, addressing specific points highlighted throughout my research, but I have lost any hope to see them pointing back to my research


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)

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 Cultural Cognition, Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Finding out, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Acknowledgement works in two directions so,
    My Thanks to Susumu Goto, (weather,earthquake and volcano eruption forecast at Japan Meteorological Agency), Larry Cosgrove, (Chief Meteorologist,WEATHERAmerica), Claudio Monteverde (Director Osservatorio Meteorologico Agrario Geologico Prof. Don Gian Carlo Raffaelli) and Deni Newman for their thumbs up at LinkedIn.
    I want to extend my thanks to them from the LinkedIn platform into my blog so by mentioning them here I might help to increase their presence in the Internet and the value of their contributions.
    I want also to thank Peggy March (@RebelGeo) from twitter for her supportive comments and shares.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  20. A new article has been published supporting the patterns described in previous assessments over Atlantic cyclonic developments towards the North due to Hadley cell deformation.

    “Persistent northward North Atlantic tropical cyclone track migration over the past five centuries.”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  34. Pingback: Memories of an Independent Researcher. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  35. Pingback: Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  36. Pingback: Climate. A Matter of Perspective, or just Pride? (Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  37. August 2019. More publications feeding from the line of research here presented without attribution:
    In 2013 I wrote something that I thought was important but I wasn’t sure scientists would see it that way. In 2019 the question is not about its value anymore. “My theory (sorry if I am terribly wrong or confused in my approach) is that the energy balance between planet’s surface and atmosphere could be getting unstable. I believe water plays a major role transferring energy between systems and I wonder if the atmosphere is getting charged with more water/pressure than it used to (defined by the Vapour Pressure Deficit, I used this parameter to research about the moisture contain of airborne pollen in the atmosphere). An increase in atmospheric temperature would lead to an expansion in volume, lowing pressure and increasing capacity to retain water. This situation would be also affected by the increasing amount of aerosol in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic and natural sources and the drop nuclei properties of such particles. So I wonder if the alteration in the distribution and availability of the masses of water in the terrestrial surface plus the enhanced capacity of retaining water by the atmosphere could start changing in any way (shape, direction, strength, …) the connections between atmospheric cells redistributing energy across the globe.
    #climatechange #research
    No alt text provided for this image
    Climate variability and energy balance

    When back in 2013 I wrote on VPD I had the experience of studying it between 2003-07 in my PhD. I identified limitations and avoid them in my research 2013-19 at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress reaching the conclusion of facing increasing patterns of atms mixing. Now you can compare publications
    ‘Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago’, Scientific American, By Chelsea Harvey, E&E News on August 15, 2019. “more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors. * Climate records suggest the declines are associated with a metric known as vapor pressure deficit”

    ‘Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth‘, Science Advances 14 Aug 2019:
    ‘Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit is a critical variable in determining plant photosynthesis. Synthesis of four global climate datasets reveals a sharp increase of VPD after the late 1990s. In response, the vegetation greening trend indicated by a satellite-derived vegetation index, which was evident before the late 1990s, was subsequently stalled or reversed… Six Earth system models have consistently projected continuous increases of VPD throughout the current century‘

    Paul, nice effort but the concept of “the maximum amount of moisture air can hold at saturation goes up by 7% per degree C temperature rise” is inaccurate in the open atmosphere, similarly with stephan-boltzman proportionality of GHGs warming or Arctic warming from ice melting.
    Also the molecular thermodynamics of water between phases and its behaviour when surrounded by other elements do not follow lab conditions or correlations. Ultimately, from my research I can tell you that biotic synergies change the physics of inert bodies interacting on climate.

    Also shared at LinkedIn:


  38. August 2019 (2)
    2019 paper Nature:
    Increased shear in the North Atlantic upper-level jet stream over the past four decades”
    “Trends in the speed of the upper-level jet stream represent a closely balanced tug-of-war between two competing effects at different altitudes. It is possible to isolate one of the competing effects by analysing the vertical shear—the change in wind speed with height—instead of the wind speed, but this approach has not previously been taken.” (???)
    September 8, 2015
    A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1697.5847
    “I believe that the present weather events, 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”.
    It does not make sense to make out scientific achievements from neglecting the work done by others. Which sometimes is unintentional and just reflects the policies behind the restrictions of the journal or the scope in the process of literature review part of the paper, but also personal preferences.

    The situations offering innovation becomes a matter of surprise when the literature reviews offered in scientific media do not include the whole spectrum of research available discussing the recent developments the last decade. When all lines of research available are considered, the new developments observed in realtime become significant events adding an objective filter between all approaches offered by either disproving or adding support and consistency to one against the others. Once the work is done shaping a theory based on arguments, discussion over observational data accessible to any one and aware of methodological bias, there is no need to make a new publication for each new development, just to apply those to verify its consistency over time. That may not grow a cv based on number of publications but it should add relevance to what your work means and the capacity to understand past, present and future developments. In this sense, I want to offer my work for you to judge its consistency against current developments.
    Who decides what is just “divulgative” or anecdotal evidence and what is beyond that?, the WMO, the UN, three people acting as (2)peers and (1)editor choosing what gets published in journals? Has anyone seen the reaction from other scientists over papers published beyond being echoes in the media? I would be more proud of myself if I get to publish one single idea which stands up against time and realtime events than tens of publications each one adjusting new ideas to new data. But again, who is to decide what is beyond just divulgative or just suitable for the media? I have shown my research to many profiles in science since in 2013 I begun to publish my line of research online cause I could not find a position in an institution in research, and I guess I have looked for feedback into the wrong audience since these people have chosen to avoid acknowledging my research even with criticism, meanwhile a retweet from Cher about a publication brings more attention to a paper than finding innovative ideas and alternatives.


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.