Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.


Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. CV english and español. Resume.

ResearchGate with original publication in pdf and DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33915.82726

(on the 22 March 2018 this publication has been expanded in content with more links to relevant content and even extracts added from previous analyses mentioned in the original format in order to include relevant information without the need to open links. You can always explore the pdf file at researchgate)

The nature of the line of research presented in this blog, being delivered over real-time developments in an independent framework, requires a constant review in order to challenge the assessments offered and the conclusions proposed with the aim to evaluate their value and veracity.

At the beginning of this study in Oct 2013, in order to expose my assessments for public review by a multidisciplinary audience, I started sharing my publications in several groups at LinkedIn such as AGU, NOAA, and several more (see an example with links to those shares here).

February 21, 2014 From previous analysis: 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 release heat/energy. Like 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 October 2014 I developed a theory over atmospheric dynamics in a changing environment. I shared my theoretical approach at the mentioned LinkedIn groups and sent few emails asking for feedback to relevant scientists in the field.

The lack of papers following similar approach as the one followed in this line of research, presented a challenge which goes beyond considering acceptance to be published in scientific journals. Such challenge became evident in 2014 when the publication of my theoretical approach over changes in atmospheric gradients of energy driving atmospheric perturbations, received numerous visits but no comments from members of specialised LinkedIn groups such as AGU, NOAA, CSIC, …

I wrote it down in my blog and I shared it in my profile in academia.edu and at several groups in LinkedIn.

A Groundhog forecast on climate at the North Hemisphere. New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on 21 October 2014. (link to the publication in this blog)

Links to the publication at LinkedIn’s groups (2014/10/25)(you need to be logged-in in order to have access to the links):

Wordpress Visits Stats Post Theory CLimate Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

WordPress Visits Stats 2 weeks between Oct 20, 2014 and Nov 2, 2014. Post Theory Climate by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

And the definitive proof of the challenge ahead, from carrying an originality with no previous peer review publications to support my arguments, was confirmed in December 2014 by direct communication with Prof Jennifer Francis by email (in full here).

I shared with her my views over changes in atmospheric dynamics expressed in two publications:

“date: Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM 

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

https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/a-groundhog-forecast-on-climate-at-the-north-hemisphere-by-diego-fdez-sevilla/

  • 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)
    http://wp.me/p403AM-mt

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.

Diego.

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)

______________________________________

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

The theory of Arctic Amplification has introduced the considerations over feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds due to changes in the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—often cited as the main contributor.

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 approach point 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 “Arctic 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. (updates can be found in the category polar vortex and jet stream. 26/04/2016)

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.

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 more wide 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.

Wind Speed at North Atlantic Sea 21 Oct, 4 Nov and 15 Dec 2014. Composition by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Images from Nullchool.net

Total Precipitable Water at the North Hemisphere 21 Oct 2014. Composition by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Images from Nullchool.net

Total Precipitable Water at the North Atlantic Sea 21 Oct 2014. Composition by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Images from Nullchool.net

November 14, 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) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488

The observed atmospheric circulation at 250 hPa and at 10hPa contributes to support my theory of being the consequence of having a decrease in the differential gradient of energy dictating atmospheric circulation due to a broader distribution of energy in altitude and latitude carried by an increasing amount of atmospheric GHGs and water vapour.

The first law of thermodynamics points to that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Therefore energy can be stored (e.g. Biochemically through photosynthesis into carbon based fuels), transformed (e.g. from chemical to kinetic like the explosion of dynamite) and transferred (e.g. from kinetic energy carried by the wind triggered by adiabatic processes to mechanical energy moving a turbine in a windmill).

Our atmosphere carries energy in different forms:

  • Thermal or heat energy in GHGs,
  • Kinetic energy being carried in the motion of air as a result of adiabatic processes,
  • Latent heat stored by water when evaporates in its form of gaseous state or vapour and release when changes from gaseous state to solid, and,
  • Potential energy contained by the mass of atmospheric water in its solid phase, snow and ice, or liquid, drops contained in clouds and rainfall.

The second law of thermodynamics points to that adding energy into an isolated thermodynamic system, like our atmosphere, would induce increases in entropy as a consequence of dissipation of energy and to dispersal of matter and energy.

The state of maximum entropy of the atmosphere would be both a uniform temperature and a uniform pressure worldwide. Clearly that is not the arrangement that we see, the atmosphere is much more complex than that. There is a systematic decrease in temperature as we move away from the equator towards the poles, and superimposed on that a complex and ever changing pattern of weather systems, with storms, high pressure regions, low pressure regions, pressure gradients, gales, etc., etc. All of these represent a high degree of order (a decrease in entropy) when compared to the uniform condition.

A constant introduction of GHGs and Water vapour in the atmosphere would induce an increase in different forms of energy. An increase in heat stored by GHGs would increase temperature, an increase of water vapour would increase rain fall and, an increase in heat from GHGs and latent heat from water vapour would induce stronger winds in  adiabatic processes. All this energy will start to be accumulated close to the source, getting dissipated firstly by local atmospheric circulation. Such scenario could be comparable with the “heat urban effect”. Similarly, the accumulation and dissipation of those forms of energy would generate climatic events near the source, the troposphere. (more discussion in previous post Looking at the influence of continentality in atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Increases in atmospheric CO2 have being claimed to store energy in the form of heat raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Accordingly, such development would induce the atmosphere to expand allowing more water vapour to be contained. CO2 storing heat and water vapour carrying latent heat and molecular mass add altogether energy in different forms which, in turn, fuel adiabatic processes, weather events and atmospheric circulation.

When considering global circulation, there are patterns of circulation which are built upon strong differential gradients of energy. Warm humid air from tropical or sub-polar regions getting in contact with cold dry air from Polar regions, under the Coriolis effect triggered by the rotation of the Earth, create a current in form of a Jet around the Pole (Lat. 60N) moving from West to East in the North Hemisphere, being called The Polar Jet Stream.

In the first instance, it could be assumed that increasing heat and water vapour contained between the Equator and sub-polar regions would increase the differential gradient of energy between sub-polar and polar atmospheric circulation, increasing the strength of the Jet Stream. That would keep concentrated and isolated cold masses of air from sub-polar circulation. Accordingly, the difference between atmospheric temperature in the Pole and in the Equator would be high and increase with more GHGs.

However, following the second law of thermodynamics, the close contact and persistence of such area of contact would induce in time, an increase in the percentage of air getting exchanged from both atmospheric areas. That scenario would develop a decrease in the difference between Polar and Equatorial temperatures. Situation which can be already observed in the records available.

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).

North Atlantic vertical circulation DiegoFdezSevillaNorth Pacific vertical circulation DiegoFdezSevilla

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. (for more discussion in this topic see previous post (Updated 19_Nov) A Groundhog forecast on climate at the North Hemisphere. New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla).

Related facts

(it continues… see full analysis following link at the title or here)

From the 17 Oct to 13 Nov 2014. (Left) Wind Speed conditions at the North Hemisphere Polar vortex. (Right) Wind Speed conditions at the North Hemisphere Jet Stream.

____________________________________

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

“On this particular topic, I would suggest reading the recent review paper (link) that I’ve attached, which includes an extensive bibliography of relevant papers.”

(from the mentioned review paper:

  • How that signal propagates out of the Arctic to mid-latitudes differs and can be loosely grouped under three broad dynamical frameworks: (1) changes in storm tracks mainly in the North Atlantic sector; (2) changes in the characteristics of the jet stream; and (3) regional changes in the tropospheric circulation that trigger anomalous planetary wave configurations.
  • The theory that Arctic amplification is resulting in a slower zonal jet, increased meridional flow, amplified waves and more persistent extreme weather has received a lot of attention from the media, policymakers and climate scientists. In part due to the high profile, this hypothesis has been scrutinized in the scientific literature more extensively than other hypotheses linking Arctic climate change to mid-latitude weather. However, it is worth noting that other studies on related topics, especially other observational studies, share some of the same shortcomings: lack of statistical significance, causality unclear, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and so on))

(email continues) The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research. It is an exciting and active new direction in research, though, so I encourage you to pursue it. To get funding or a job in this field, however, will require a deeper understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics (not just suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence), and statements supported by published (or your own) analysis.”

Francis communication

Francis communication (in full here)

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 Arctic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Arctic 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 Arctic 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.”

Review in progress

In the exchange of emails with Jennifer Francis asking for feedback she pointed me out that “there were no peer reviewed publications at the time available to verify my assessments so I should offer my own data and analyses“. Accordingly, in February 2015 I wrote a follow-up piece revisiting and contrasting my theory with the events occurred throughout the winter 2014-15.

Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Posted on 10th February 2015.

Links to the publication at LinkedIn’s groups (2015/03/24 07:22:15 UTC):

 

February 10, 2015 Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1Cohen et al.2011 proposed that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Arctic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Arctic 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.

In August 2014 Cohen et al, published a review over the state of knowledge on climatic research: DOI:10.1038/NGEO2234 “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”.

In October 2014 I published my theoretical explanation over the mechanism driving climatic alterations.

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 more wide 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.

In December 2014 I shared my theory and my point of view with Prof Jennifer Francis by email. She replied saying: “the topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research. You will need statements supported by published (or your own) analysis, (not just suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence)

Following Jennifer comments I offer a review over the theory that I have proposed with new analyses.

My theory tries to find common ground to explain the cause leading to Arctic 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.

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 analyses 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, the implications of having the Arctic circulation not “Amplifying” but “Absorbing” constant increases in atm CO2 and Water vapour defines what is happening at the Arctic just as a side effect (with its own implications) of a more wide process resultant from a reduction between the differential  gradients of energy driving the atmospheric global circulation (e.g. inducing a weak Polar Jet Stream), being water vapour the carrier of the energy being dispersed all over the atmosphere, in latitude and altitude.

The most significant features indicating the potential validity of this theory are:

  • The formation of deep and resilient cyclonic events holding enough energy to affect atmospheric circulation from Surface level all the way up to Jet Stream level (250 hPa).

Circulation in Altitude 21thOct_4thNov and 15th Nov2014

  • Moisture gained in the Equator getting introduced in atmospheric circulation carried by water vapour into higher latitudes incorporating more energy in atmospheric circulation in the form of latent heat.

Notice that the most predominant entrance of water vapour into high latitudes happens in the North Atlantic.

10 Feb 2015 TPW Surf_by DiegoFdezSevilla

Actual state of atmospheric circulation for wind direction and Total Precipitable Water in the atmospheric column today 10th Feb 2015. Data NOAA & Nullschool.

Persistent patterns in atmospheric circulation carrying water vapour in the NH Pacific have repeated similar to those from last year’s winter: 2014 Feb and Oct. 2015 Nov, Dec, Feb and March.

… (see full analysis at source following link at the title)

It is being more challenging than I expected to find feedback when members at specialised groups like AGU and NOAA kept silent without agreement or disagreement.

Since then I have published more than 150 pieces assessing all type of synergies between all components of the global ecosystem, including discussions over conceptual establishments and frameworks as well as discussing physical dynamics and energetic fluctuations considering the composition and structure of the phases of our environment as Solid (biotic and none biotic), Liquid and Gaseous.

Different Analyses have addressed Specific Features.

My definition of Climate Drift is:

The deviation from equilibrium of the conditions allowing the perpetuity of an established symbiotic relationship between biotic and none biotic components in a micro and macro ecosystem. This situation can be due to changes in any component of the ecosystem playing a synergistic effect over the rest. And the causes can be either a change in the magnitude of the already implemented forces in place, changes in the directionality or rates in the flows of energy pre-established OR/AND the impact suffered by the incorporation of new components/forces and energy sinks or sources in any part of the system interfering with the previously established order and balance.

Some examples among the +150 analyses published between Oct 2013 and March 2017 are in the following section. See full index of analyses following the link here. Open individual analyses to read in full by clicking over the title.

Climate Drifts

Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) July 2, 2015
September 2, 2016 Climate Drift, The True Meaning of Things and the Drift of Those. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

The ENSO

InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
December 11, 2015 Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? Discussing SST ” El Niño ” and Climatic Developments. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 22, 2016 Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Solar activity

April 10, 2014 Exploring the effects of humanly generated factors in the role played by Solar activity in the climate. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 24, 2015 Solar Activity and Human Activity, Settling Their Environmental Liability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36702.33606
September 22, 2016 Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

Soils

December 9, 2015 SOILS. The Skeleton Holding The Muscle On Our Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 31, 2016 Plant growth, CO2, Soil and Nutrients. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Biological Productivity in our atmospheric and climatic developments.

August 14, 2014 Biotic players and atmospheric processes. Another piece of the puzzle. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
Debating Climate, Environment and Planetary evolution. Define your position. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) October 2, 2014
June 26, 2014 Biological Productivity and its Influence on Cloud Formation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
December 22, 2014 Biological Productivity, Amazonia and Atmospheric Circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 7, 2015 Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 20, 2015 News from an Ecosystem (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
June 18, 2015 Extreme climatic events, implications for projections of species distributions and ecosystem structure (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
August 2, 2016 Environmental Questions and Answers for Petrol Fans (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
March 15, 2017 Blooming Activity of Biotic Processes All The Way Round the Globe (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Arctic Amplification and Antarctic dynamics.

October 7, 2015 Arctic Intake of Water Vapour (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 30, 2015 Follow-up on Arctic circulation 30 Oct 2015 ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 5, 2015 There is Ice or Frost In Antarctica? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
June 10, 2016 The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 10, 2016 Cyclonic Alignment Towards the Arctic (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
March 3, 2017 The Antarctic Bubble (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Equatorial Dynamics

January 28, 2015 The origin of the Storm “Juno” 27 Jan 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
September 8, 2015 A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla).
October 7, 2016 Equatorial Dynamics. A conversation between Joaquin and Matthew (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
October 13, 2016 Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.)
March 8, 2017 Those Little Things in Atmospheric Dynamics. Juno, Jonas, Mathew and Joaquin (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Teleconnections

In climate it is becoming Less probable to not have a High probability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 29, 2015
June 5, 2015 Climate and Data. Drinking From the Source (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
October 21, 2015 Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 16, 2015 SST Anomalies and Heat Waves. Are They Not All Just Heat Displacements? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
January 20, 2017 Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Scientific Method

February 21, 2014 Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
February 25, 2014 Resilience in our environment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
“The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 15, 2014
When the order of the factors does affect the product. “A Changing Climate can affect the diversity of an ecosystem” Vs “Changing the diversity of an ecosystem can affect the Climate”. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 21, 2014
Communication takes more than just publishing thoughts. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) June 9, 2015
The scope of Environmental Science and scientific thought. From Thought-driven to Data-driven, from Critical Thinking to Data Management. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) June 26, 2015
InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
March 10, 2017 Modelling the “Model” and the Observer (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Water

July 17, 2014 Could plastic debris, coarse, fine and molecules (polymers), affect oceans functions as climate regulator, CO2 sink, albedo, evaporation…? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
August 6, 2014 Inland sanctuaries of water vapour for atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Continentality

May 13, 2014 Looking at the influence of continentality in atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Thermodynamics

October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
January 29, 2016 Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.
March 10, 2016 Tangled in Words. Atmospheric Dynamics, Stefan Boltzmann Calculations and Energy Balance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 26, 2016 Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 30, 2016 When Temperature Becomes Something Else (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 1, 2016 Atmospheric mixing. Indian Basin June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
September 14, 2016 Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
December 17, 2016 Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality. A Change Triggered from Changing the Order of The Factors (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

Temperature

Talking about climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 12, 2015
August 6, 2015 Atmospheric Composition and Thermal Conductivity. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
April 6, 2016 Atmospheric Dynamics, GHG’s, Thermal Conductivity and Polar Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33911.32167
November 25, 2016 Atmospheric Thermal Conductance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32238.10566

Once those publications were exposed for criticism through months with no arguments refuting their value, more publications have addressed, specifically, reviews and follow-ups over previous assessments.

March 14, 2014 The breakdown of the Polar Vortex. It happened before so, What would follow? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

 

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. PhD.

October 15, 2015 Follow up on previous assessments addressing shifts on Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

 

October 21, 2015 Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 30, 2015 Follow-up on Arctic circulation 30 Oct 2015 ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 19, 2015 Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
January 29, 2016 Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla.
March 3, 2016 Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
June 22, 2016 Snap shot of a day 22 June 2016. Follow-up on previous research over atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 19, 2016 Atmospheric Dynamics. Foreseeable, At The Moment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
August 26, 2016 Aug 2016 Follow-up on previous assessments. Atmospheric Dynamics, Temperature Displacements, Atmospheric Mixing (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
October 19, 2016 Energy in our environmental systems. Follow-up on previous assessments. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
December 9, 2016 RECAP 9Dec16 on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
February 6, 2017 6 Feb 2017. Recent atmospheric dynamics seen over NH and SH. Follow-up on Previous Assessments. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
February 9, 2017 Feb 2017. Polar Jet Stream and Atmospheric Dynamics. Follow-up over Past and Present Conditions (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
March 10, 2017 March 2017 Iberian Peninsula Follow-up from previous research by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

Emerging Peer review publications

After two years offering assessments without articles available to contrast my point of view, in the last year some papers have started to appear addressing those topics shared in the line of research presented in this blog.

May 6, 2016 Climate and Hadley Circulation. Research Update May 2016 (by Diego Fdez-sevilla)
June 10, 2016 The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 28, 2016 Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

The line of research presented in this blog challenges pre-established conceptualizations and looks into new perspectives and approaches in order to judge the significance behind indicators (Biotic and abiotic) identified in our environment.

Ultimately, the best review available to judge the validity of any theory on mechanisms and synergies comes with the real time contrast between previous assessments and present conditions.

State of the Atmosphere 23 March 2017

Temp 2m and Temp Anomaly 2m

Total Precipitable Water

Mean Sea Level Pressure

Wind V (Northwards)

Temp Anomalies, Surface 2m and Sea Surface Temperature

Temp Anomalies 10 hPa

Temp Anomalies 50 hPa

Stratosphere

NH

SH

NH and SH Temp Anomalies

ENSO

Arctic-Antarctic Sea Ice Extent

NASA: March 22, 2017 “Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles”

These line graphs plot monthly deviations and overall trends in polar sea ice from 1979 to 2017 as measured by satellites. The top line shows the Arctic; the middle shows Antarctica; and the third shows the global, combined total. The graphs depict how much the sea ice concentration moved above or below the long-term average. (They do not plot total sea ice concentration.) Arctic and global sea ice totals have moved consistently downward over 38 years. Antarctic trends are more muddled, but they do not offset the great losses in the Arctic. Credits: Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory. More information from NASA’s Earth Observatory

Discussion

(Last Updated March 28, 2017)

I would like to incorporate recent developments in the body of work which I try to present in my blog with posts which can be found at the timeline using Ctrl+F and key words.

Throughout last weekend 18-19 March 2017, there was rain, snow and hail in the Canary Islands meanwhile temperatures above seasonality in Spain. Something which has happened before

Leon -Spain. Location North-Inland Altitude (m): 912
Latitude42° 35′ 18” N – Longitude5° 39′ 4” W.  PositionSee location

Time series of temperature. Regions shaded red show above-normal temperatures; regions shaded blue show below-normal temperatures. Blank areas indicate missing data. NOAA: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov

http://www.aemet.es/

 

 

 

 

 

Vigo- Spain. Location North West Atlantic Coast. Altitud (m): 261
Latitud42° 14′ 19” N – Longitud8° 37′ 26” O. PositionSee location

Time series of temperature. Regions shaded red show above-normal temperatures; regions shaded blue show below-normal temperatures. Blank areas indicate missing data. NOAA: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov

http://www.aemet.es/

 

 

 

 

 

Teneriffe Canary Islands. –  Altitude (m): 632
Latitude28° 28′ 39” N – Longitude16° 19′ 46” W –  PositionSee location

In 48 hours, between the 19 March and 21/22 March 2017, temperatures have dropped at the Iberian peninsula from above 20 ºC to  negative values.

2017 March 21 850 hPa Temp. Aemet.

This situation is related with the assessments which I have presented in posts addressing “drops of weather”, “roller coaster of temperatures”, “a climate between waters”, “Kinetic seasonality vs orbital seasonality”and the category “polar jet stream”.

Temperature and Geopotential 850 hPa

Peru is under heavy rain and floods being justified by El Niño as in 1998. However, those events are justified by relative less warm SST than in 1998 and without wind shear patterns associated with the El Niño. I would link these events with previous posts such as “Information the act of giving form to knowledge” (addressing floods in Atacama dessert in previous years) and “dynamics with and without a positive ENSO” and “Equatorial dynamics”.

The patterns in North America are following a path influenced by the state of the Polar Jet stream dragging low pressures from the Pacific across the continent while sucking water vapour from the Mexican Gulf at intervals defined by the intensity of the Rossby Waves originated by the Arctic intake of warm midlatitudinal masses of air. In this regard I would suggest posts containing words such as “Arctic”, “North American Weather. Old News, Same News?”.

The state of the global dynamics show warm dynamics moving towards the poles expressed by biological blooms as well as by temp anomalies. Meanwhile, Arctic masses of air are displaced towards lower latitudes (North American Continent and at the Canary Islands are getting snow the first and hail the second). This situation of instability could be linked to the transition between seasons. However, such transition has not been defined by the Sun’s angle of incidence linked with seasonality. Such situation points to an increase in the mixing ratio between midlatitudinal masses of air and Arctic circulation driven by kinetic energy transferred through the atmosphere.

Such atmospheric accumulation of energy is delivering also prominent events of pouring rain in locations such as South America and even the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian peninsula with rain rates localised in time and space way above most previous seasonal conditions in the last years.

The orbital positioning of the Earth is neither at the strongest cold phase in the NH or the warmest at the SH, and yet, in both hemispheres there are biotic indicators reacting to conditions associated with warmer than current astronomically seasonal position or even Solar’s cycle activity.

Equinox 20 March 2017 was at 10:29 GMT or 6:29 AM EDT

It is my believe that justifying understanding on present events based on correlations with indexes carries huge limitations since those indexes are not explained with mechanisms. As an example, wind patterns at the Eq Pacific are not matching with previous EL Niño conceptualizations:

El Niño WATCH: six of eight models suggest El Niño by July

14 March 2017. Australia 2017, Bureau of Meteorology

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is neutral. However, model outlooks and recent warming in the Pacific Ocean mean there is an increased chance of El Niño forming later this year. The Bureau’s ENSO Outlook is currently at El Niño WATCH, which means the likelihood of El Niño forming this year is around double the average chance at 50%.

Most atmospheric and oceanic indicators of ENSO are currently neutral. However, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern Pacific Ocean have warmed since the start of the year, and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has been trending downwards. While these are fairly typical changes in the lead up to El Niño, trade winds and cloudiness have not shown any significant shift away from neutral.

It is not that I don´t see the value behind indexes. I am just trying to highlight how easy, in the absence of a better understanding, it can be settled for a conformity adopted from agreement, which instead of being kept as a momentary compromise adopted in the waiting process for a better explanation, an agreement over a limited interpretation of an event, it becomes settled in time as an explanation, an answer in itself.

The ENSO is not an answer, it is an open question. It is not the trigger of changes in global circulation since its own origin is linked with a previous process for which its origin is still under discussion.

We can look at how much energy is released by the ENSO, or, we can look at how much energy is required to trigger the phases of the ENSO. But even before that, we should have clear awareness about what the ENSO represents based on standarised records, and how much such conceptualization might change.

Obvious Facts

Restating obvious facts is something I believe it is missing in the actual state of knowledge. Many situations, concepts and indexes are what it was left to make a compromise between what was possible to be considered useful at the time. Nobody explained the mechanisms behind those indexes, only the explanation of their existence based on the probability of seeing those patterns to repeat in time. Such probability and uncertainty became “lost” in translation through publications and their basic facts became also accommodated positions from where to stand discussing the future, almost never looking back at the fundamentals sustaining them. Like the ENSO used as a justification without knowing what the ENSO is or the NAO as if both would be static features through time. Those indexes were created based on probability from a static point of view and static references. But, if the atmosphere change its composition and thermodynamics behaviour, how much probability could we expect in seeing those features not changing?? Like the currents in a river, those are temporary features resultant from temporary states in topographic shape and flow levels, same with energy in the atmosphere.

It has been considered as an obvious fact that:

“The Natural System responds to variations and changes in the Climate System.”

Based on my research, I believe that there is a new “factorial” order in our environmental system which comes described by the same components but moving in opposite directions. At the end of the day, or at the beginning of our days, it was biotic processes which made possible the climate we have, and not the other way around.

“The Climate System responds to variations and changes in the Natural System.”

Conclusions

The main conclusion reached from the research carried through this project is defined by the relation described by Einstein between the “free” state of Energy and its “fixed” state as mass.

An ecosystem is an open system because it can exchange energy or materials with other ecosystems. Earth is a closed system with respect to nutrients and chemicals, but open with respect to energy.

The thermodynamic properties of the Earth system define what we call the climatic regimes in our Planet. Those thermodynamic interactions are driven under the fundamental principle:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another”

This principle links the activity of the human development with the thermodynamic behaviour of our climates.

This publication is the closing stage of the project:

Based on the research published my global assessment on anthropogenic forcing as a cause of climatic drift is the following:

Two processes are being affecting our thermodynamic system At the same time:

  • The action of the human specie has reduced the capacity of the Biota in our ecosystems to fix energy entering our planet through photosynthesis by reducing the capacity of the ecosystems to regenerate,
  • AND also, The action of the human specie is releasing energy into the thermodynamic system from its fixed form due to the lack of efficiency in transportation and transformation from one state to another, either from dams using gravimetric energy, through burning organic material (fossil and new), managing soils, waste production (energy, solid, liquid and gaseous), managing of raw materials, …

Are Models capable of simulate natural variability?

The problem with models lays on defining the initial state from where to run it and, the synergies which will exist or vanish through time, as well as, to define the level of dominance between those synergies. So, to only start with one single limitation I would say, how much is integrated in models the increase of human forcing over other variables as the time moves forward? How much is taken in consideration the deterioration in the capacity of our environment to absorb the impacts from variations of natural variability (environmental resilience)? An atmospheric physicist will look at the interaction of physical variables to develop mathematical equations and relations build on stats. As a biologist, mathematics and stats are tools which bring light into the existence of questions described in terms of probability or uncertainty. We can evaluate the relative frequency in the origin of mutations due to UV exposure, but we can not predict the type of mutation which we will see, how those will develop and which will become dominant. Same in environmental modelling. A change in the energetic flows in a new scenario might change the dominance roles.

Understanding the clouds

Clouds have still to be understood. And yet, water clouds only exist in our known universe, in our planet, due to one particular situation, that is the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. Such concentration is directly linked with the origin and capacity of performance of our biotic systems.

Considering just 2 basic biotic processes being;

  •  the ones responsible for the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere and,
  •  their interaction releasing Cloud nuclei particles enhancing the formation of clouds

The mere identification of seeing numbers of trees decreased over 46% from wild ecosystems being affected through time due to agriculture, urbanization, deforestation, same for soil degradation, decrease in O2 conc, and an increase in GHG, can not be left out of the equation when considering what it is and what it is not “natural variability”, and the future expected for our thermodynamic planetary system.

Our planet is getting fat on GHG, lacking O2, space to breath and capacity to fix and store energy. Biology integrates all components in an ecosystem, yet it is missing in climatology assessments. An AstroBiologist would easily judge a planet with the rates like ours.

Einstein and his developments were mainly applied in physics due to the use that it was made of his work with the aim to manipulate energy in times of conflict, or to understand space. The equation is simple E=mc2. The language of physics has dominated the discussion over physical developments since then and it has been established as the logical translation of climatic developments. However, in the current times, the role of scientific understanding demands to move beyond the barriers of language, either between semantic cultural languages and between disciplines.

Being myself a Biologist involved in Atmospheric dynamics applying physics to explain such a complex subject as it is climatic evolution might seem like the tale of the child claiming that the Emperor has no clothes.

And yet, it seems to me evident that a thermodynamic system as it is our planet, can not scape from the most basic and powerful understanding of our contemporary scientific evolution. If E=MC2, and the anthropogenic activity is increasing the transformation of M into Energy in the system (from burning Mass from fossils and vegetable components,  as well as by liberating other forms of energy such as gravimetric in Dams, Solar, transformation of raw materials, etc,) such transformation rate will move the balance in the thermodynamic behaviour of the whole system, and the rate of such deviation from equilibrium will be related with the speed at which the transformation rate between E/M is performed: M>(c)2

As conclusion:

An increase in the amount of energy being in “free” state means that kinetic processes will increasingly dominate thermodynamic processes, inducing a transition in our climatic regimes from being driven by Orbital Positioning to be driven by more erratic Kinetic processes.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

Land Use Change through time.

Land use change through time.

Examples of processes releasing ENERGY FROM ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES

From previous post Domesticating Nature

Scripps O2 Global Oxygen Measurements The Scripps O2 Program measures changes in atmospheric oxygen levels from air samples collected at stations around the world. This sampling network provides a global and hemispheric perspective on oxygen variability. The Scripps O2 Program is based at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California and is under the direction of Professor Ralph Keeling.

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels are Decreasing Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 ‘per meg’ per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year.

 


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

As from March 2017, I am in transition looking for new opportunities and new challenges, to join a team. At the same time that I look for job openings to incorporate my resume, I would encourage any one finding interesting any of the skills which I apply throughout my research, as well as communicator, to evaluate my profile as a candidate for your projects (Profile at Linkedin and CV english and español) email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

After 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 job. However, in such competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv between desks waiting for my next opportunity to arrive, I used it as an advantageous standing point to start and develop independent research in a blog in which I could open my own line of research completely free of external pressures or interferences. Through the whole project I have published pieces of research applying my own perspective focused on addressing relevant environmental questions.

The work which I present in my blog is just a chapter in my career. At Feb 2017, it has reached an stage in which its framework has been defined and it has been applied in follow-ups delivering the subsequent conclusions.

The level of uncertainty which I have accomplished in my assessments has reached enough accuracy to replicate real time developments to the point of compete with models sustained by corporate and administrative budgets.

The economic support sustaining the three years of research presented in this blog has been private based on my own capacity to generate it. Once the main conclusions of the project have demonstrated their value, it is time for my career to find new ways of growth and/or external sources of financial support.

Therefore, at this time Feb 2017, the generation of assessments over present developments discontinues in the absence of external financial support.

You can look at the whole project (more than 190 posts between Oct 2013 to Feb 2017) published at https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com and also you will find some of those publications in my profile at ResearchGate

I am living in Spain free to relocate geographically worldwide.

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

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 more than 190 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.

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

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)gmail.com

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.

Perspective

(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, hereand 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)gmail.com

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, updated 09th Dec 2016):

Advertisements

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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 sponsor or mentor interested would be welcome. Intellectual Property This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Citing This Site: "Title", published online "Month"+"Year" retrieved on "Month""Day", "Year" from https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. Or by using its DOI at ResearchGate. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/bibliography/citations#! DOIs can be generated on demand by request at email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com for those publications missing at the ResearchGate profile vinculated with this project. **Author´s profile: Born in 1974. Bachelor in General Biology, Masters degree "Licenciado" in Environmental Sciences (2001, Spain). PhD in Aerobiology (2007, UK). Lived, acquired training and worked in Spain, UK, Germany and Poland. I have shared the outcome from my work previous to 2013 as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After 12 years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, in 2013 I found myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my own line of research. In the current competitive scenario, in order to demonstrate my capacities instead of just moving my cv waiting for my next opportunity to arrive, I decided to invest my energy and time in opening my own line of research sharing it in this blog. In March 2017 the budget reserved for this project has ended and its weekly basis time frame discontinued until new forms of economic and/or institutional support are incorporated into the project. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this platform and at LinkedIn has proved to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community as well as for publication in scientific journals. However, without a position as member of an institution, it becomes very challenging to be published. I hope that this handicap do not overshadow the value of my achievements and that the Intellectual Property Rights generated with the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in similar lines of research. **Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome as well as any approach exploring professional opportunities to be part of.** In this blog I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions. Furthermore, I try to break the barrier that academic publications very often offer isolating scientific findings from the general public. In that way I address those topics which I am familiar with, thanks to my training in environmental research, making them available throughout my posts. (see "Framework and Timeline" for a complete index). At this moment, 2018, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects, don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) gmail.com or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Also, I'd appreciate information about any opportunity that you might know and believe it could match with my aptitudes. The conclusions and ideas expressed in each post as part of my own creativity are part of my Intellectual Portfolio and are protected by Intellectual Property Laws. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial conditions. In citing my work from this website, be sure to include the date of access and DOI. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2018. Filling in or Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/
This entry was posted in Aerobiology, Biological productivity, Energy Balance, Filling in, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

  1. João Danune says:

    Buenas Noches Caro e Ilustre Diego Gracias pelo importante documento, que me interessa muito e depois de ler farei so comentários devidos hasta lunes, sem falta. Par rematar, me gustaria ler tu opiniones sobre lo que escrevi hoy en el likedin sobre Mteeorological Day, por favor, faça críticas fuertes sobre lo que escrevi hoy. Saludos cordiales JDanune

    On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. wrote:

    > Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. posted: “Review in Progress. March 2017. ENSO by > Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. The nature of the line of research presented in > this blog, being delivered over real-time developments in an independent > framework, requires a constant review in order to challenge the asses” >

    Like

  2. Pingback: 8th August 2017. Weather analyses and Climatic implications. Follow-up on previous assessments and real time developments over the NH, South and Central Europe By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

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

  5. Pingback: Climate. Too Simple To Be It (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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 )

w

Connecting to %s