Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption. Half Full/Half Empty. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Sluggish ice growth in the Arctic (Snow and Ice Data Center, 2 Nov 2016)

After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.

Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption.

The Arctic Amplification theory defends that the ice cover missing is due to a “massive heat release in/by the Arctic into the atmosphere”.

Based on my research, the ice cover missing is not due to a “massive heat release to the atmosphere (Arctic Amplification)” but due to an introduction of heat from mid-latitudes. The Arctic snow and ice cover is lower on its rate of recovery from summer, so there is not a melt down releasing heat. The absence of “solid water” comes from the heat being transferred by intrusions of warm air. These warm intrusions are reducing the differential in energy gradients between oceanic water and atmosphere so there is not enough contrast to grow ice or to form enough snow. Since the heat can only be contained and transferred by matter, the atmosphere in the arctic containing the heat shows to carry moist from midLat instead of being dry air from Arctic circulation, and it is having an effect below its position (reducing Arctic ice cover and warming up oceanic temperatures) as well as above it, inducing the weak polar vortex.


In short what I am trying to highlight is the fact that the Arctic is a half full/half empty scenario. But we have to remember that cold is the absence of heat.

The process of thinking described by the Arctic Amplification theory comes from assuming that there is an increase of heat being released by/in the Arctic.

Based on my previous research presented in this blog, I disagree with that.

The thermal energy accumulated through summer in the Arctic can not be transferred into the atmosphere if this atmosphere is Arctic Dry Air as it used to be. The heat contained by Arctic masses of air comes with the air mass in itself due to the moisture carried from Mid Laitudes. Since there is thermal heat within the mass of air, the heat absorbed by the Arctic oceans can not be transferred into the atmosphere and freeze in the process. Therefore there is a reduction in Ice/Snow cover. But also affects the stability of the Polar Vortex from the bottom up.

The weather outlook linked to this process would be the following:

“The door of the Arctic freezer is not closed properly. In other words, the Polar Jet Stream is too weak to keep the Arctic isolated from Mid-Latitude intrusions. With such weak Polar Jet Stream configuration we are going to get “frost” all over the place. For as long as warm air gets into the Arctic the air already there will get pushed out.”

Half Empty /Half full

It has been a matter of previous discussions, in the line of research presented in this blog, to assess the differences between the concept of Arctic Amplification and my approach proposing the effects and dynamics behind considering Arctic Absorption.

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

Published on February 10, 2015

What I propose with my hypothesis are the mechanisms inducing to Arctic Amplification as a side effect of a wider principle. That it is a symptom and not a causation.

What I am trying to highlight in my theory are the possible mechanisms which would explain: changes in albedo which support Arctic Amplification, early snowfalls in central Asia, Arctic ice cover meltdown and oceanic increases in salinity and ultimately, the origin of atmospheric blocking patterns and the pause in T raise unified in single principle: Increasing conc. of CO2 and water vapour induce a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in the global atmospheric circulation, not only the Arctic.

From: When Temperature Becomes Something Else (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Posted on

The most common parameter applied to talk about climate is Temperature, and yet, that is not the same when we talk about weather. But, are both so distant one from each other that it can make any sense adopting such discrepancies?

Such assessment might sound too extreme among many however, it seems to be the case of that Temperature is assumed to be the responsible driver behind of all events concerning our atmosphere but, what would happens when temperature becomes something else and  something else becomes temperature? Where should we focus our attention?

Through my research I have tried to point out the relevance of adopting a different approach towards understanding atmospheric developments from focusing our attention over temperature as a parameter on its own. Even though variations in temperature are the easiest to determine in the first instance, those also deviate our attention from addressing what temperature really means: where does it comes from and where does it go when we can not longer measure it?

One example, we can look at ENSO as half empty/half full scenario. Either we can look at how powerful are El Niño / la Niña or, how much power it is required to generate those conditions. The implications and interpretations derived are quite different.

What does it mean that temperature drops? If we know that temperature is just an expression of energy, and that energy does not disappear, where is that energy going? Out space?And then, when temperature raises, where is that energy coming from? Is it getting colder some other place in order to generate such increase in a different location?

But again, why temperature has to be the answer? What would happens when temperature becomes something else and  something else becomes temperature?

I have tried to avoid this weakness in the approach that I apply to study climatic developments through my research since 2014. In my last publication Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

It will take that some relevant names get to publish in relevant journals something really relevant in order to find a common ground between disciplines and scientists, but at the moment, using temperature as the focus point, it feels like we are chasing a tail. Because if studying temperature requires for some people to wait 30 years “under the weather”, maybe, we should change the approach and take a closer look at what is that it makes the weather. Because Temperature is just one expression of the energy being carried within the atmosphere, altogether with, wind, electricity and gravimetric volumes of water delivering precipitation.


From: Settled Science (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.).

Posted on

If we consider that a butterfly can have an effect over atmospheric circulation we have to consider also the effect from any other substantial action including not only derived from industrial activities but also, from implementing policies. In comparison with the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings, what kind of feedback should we expect from effect of the wings on just one single wind turbine with an enormous proportional size?, or the effect of releasing ground surfaces from the interference of trees in the atmospheric circulation…?,

And we can keep asking about the introduction of vast amounts of new components in the atmosphere from anthropogenic activity, and the alteration of solid structures due to urbanization, mining and waste treatment, Water cycles due to pollution and compartmentalization…

Basically, I believe that the lack of understanding the basics in science is what has left us to arrive to this point in time and degradation in our environments. Applying same lack of understanding into creating “innovative solutions” will not take us far from where we are heading already if those solutions carry the same “basic” mistakes as those previously applied.

One particular point of unsettled science highlighted in my research is the opposite directionality interpreted over the Arctic Amplification theory. Arctic Amplification defends that the increase in temperature at Arctic latitudes is amplifying the effect from a global warming over mid-latitudinal circulation. My approach applies a new perspective to purpose that the atmospheric situation over the Arctic is not amplifying any process, due to its low energetic pool. Instead, the Arctic circulation is “passively” absorbing the energy carried under the influence of mid-latitudinal pressure due to hadley cell’s deformation.

Such mechanism is independent from a minor influence coming from affecting the conditions of albedo at the Arctic. In fact, albedo affects material getting radiated with the capacity to accumulate and re-emit energy. But the Arctic has an atmosphere usually dry due to its low temperatures. Therefore, the conditions of the Arctic atmosphere defining its thermal properties rely on its majority over the amount of moisture carried capable to absorb energy.

My theory is that the increasing warming over mid-latitudes is using water vapour as the carrier of energy incorporating it over the whole atmosphere and into Arctic latitudes. Such mechanism will increase the energy pool at the Arctic, what in other words can be seeing as an increase in temperature. Follow up on this theory can be found in the following publications:

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 the 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. All the weather events seen in the recent years and the location for those events point to corroborate my previous assessments, either directly or indirectly (also here and here). Moreover, if my take over the present developments is accurate, what comes after is what will make things interesting.

So far, the most of the feedback reactions we see put in contact masses of air moving horizontally through the atmosphere. If my assessments are correct, that will be only over a period of transition. Simultaneously, a new scape path will generate interferences over the atmospheric circulation in altitude due to energised adiabatic forcing. Such processes have already been observed and called stratospheric sudden warming events. A process which, moving from the bottom up, disturbs the configuration of the Polar Vortex.


(Update 17 Nov 2016 19:32 UTC+1)

From LinkedIn discussion

I know the arguments and the data presented by those articles articles presenting the Arctic Amplification theory such as

“The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification” by James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds, also “Mechanism of seasonal Arctic sea ice evolution and Arctic amplification” by Kwang-Yul Kim et al.

From the beginning of this research I have considered also papers by Cohen and colleges, and Jennifer Francis.

And, I agree with their observations but I disagree with their interpretation.

When we look at sea ice melting we can consider a transference of energy, but from where to where? Where is the energy coming from to melt ice? Albedo is energy rejected from the system so this energy does not melt ice. You can not justify a decrease in ice based on a decrease in Albedo due to a decrease in ice. Which matter is absorbing and transferring heat into the ice? Ashes immersed in the ice? warmer surrounding water? atmosphere? What happens when one volume of mass transfers heat to another? It gets colder, so the atm column is warmer in surface colder in the middle and warmer again in altitude, always in relation with its surroundings.

“Increased transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting from sea ice loss” means that sea ice is melting in a process where sea ice releases heat!!! That is against any thermodynamic coherence and understanding, despite of being in peer review articles and from recognised scientists and institutions. I am sorry but I can not agree.

I have received the following comment:

There are 2 ways less ice results in the release of heat. First between 100 and 900 meter depths there is an enormous amount of heat derived from relatively warm and dense inflowing Atlantic waters that could melt Arctic ice several times over. The removal of thick mulityear ice by freezing winds removed the insulating ice cover and released more of that subsurface heat to the atmosphere. Second after the winds removed thick ice, now more new ice forms each winter and ice formation releases latent heat as well new ice having less insulating capabilities. In accord with this theoretical ventilation of Arctic ocean heat, MIT/Harvard oceanographers recently estimated the upper 700 meters of the Arctic ocean has cooled over the past 2 decades.

And I have replied as follows:

(Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) Latent heat is released in a process of transference between substance with thermal conductivity. When the air above the water containing heat is cold and dry generates the so called “steam fog” we saw over the great lakes in 2014. The inhibition of ice and snow over the Arctic in periods of low radiation can be explained by the lack of differential in energy with its surroundings so water can not release its heat content in order to freeze. Therefore, the atmosphere is not taking the energy required for water to freeze because it contains energy already, carried by water vapour introduced from mid latitudes. That is a trend which would explain the lack of mechanisms mentioned in scientific literature linking all the atmospheric events happening all around the globe. At least that is the conclusion from my research.

I received the following comment over my answer:

I dont understand your reasoning regards the “atmosphere taking” heat. Heat simply travels from a region of higher temperatures to lower. At 80 degrees north latitude air temperatures are only above freezing for about 80 days during the summer. For about a hundred days during the winter, air temperatures are 25 to 30 degrees below freezing. The Atlantic water between 100 and 900 meters is much warmer than the air, 2 to 4 degrees above freezing, thus heat is traveling from the ocean to the atmosphere.

And I have replied the following:

Temperature is measured through an atmosphere with a molecular composition thermically active. The atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The molecular composition which absorb and retain radiation affecting climatic regimes and ice cover anomalies are GHGs (CO2) being water vapour the major component as part of a feedback with the other GHGs. Through periods of low radiation (winter) temperature drops enough (as in the Arctic should be) so the molecular composition would be mostly N and O without water vapour since it would freeze. So the atmosphere in itself looses its thermal conductance by drying out. How ever, if there is a forced increment of GHGs, like the increase in water vapour measured in the latest decades, the thermal conductance of the air increases, carrying more energy in circulation by water vapour. Being increased the pool of energy carried at the Arctic decreases the amount of energy which the atmosphere can absorb from the oceans. Water releases energy until it freezes only if it the surrounding medium can take all the energy supplied by the ocean. Otherwise it absorbs energy only up to thermal equilibrium. If this equilibrium is higher than freezing there is no ice.

My research points to an increase of the energy pool in the atmosphere carried by water vapour as consequence of transformations induced in the composition and structure of the gaseous, liquid and solid phases of our environment, from increases of CO2 in the gaseous phase, transformations in energy sinks due to land cover management in the solid phase, and alterations over water cycles due to compartmentalization, inland water losses, acidification and pollution. An increase in the energy pool of the atmosphere explains ice loss in the Arctic, ice increase (at the moment) in the Antarctic (differences in land-ocean contrasts with NH), increasing number of events related with strong winds, water downpours and snow fall, heat waves and cold displacements crossing latitudes instead of having smooth transitions through longitudes.

(End Update 17 Nov 2016 19:32 UTC+1)



Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

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)

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 help me 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.


(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, here and here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research 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.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out):


About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

9 Responses to Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s