The Yellow Brick Road of Grammar. My Apologies. (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
Designed for best view in desktop format.
By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD (c) (Biologist PhD in Atmospheric Biology). orcid.org/0000-0001-8685-0206. CV english and español. Resume. Interdisciplinary Skills applied in the line of research presented.- Index for all analyses published. – Shares and Feedback at LinkedIn
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
My most profound thank to those of you offering feedback is not from getting nice words about your views over my work, comments and attitude interacting with others, but from offering your honest views.
At this point in time for my career, and personal life, I want to be aware of all the criticism that anyone can point out to me or my work because I want to be conscious of any “side effects” that can affect the value of what I try to transmit to others, either through my work or my attitude.
So I deeply appreciate your criticism, moreover, since no single comment has been received at this blog or at LinkedIn disproving the validity of any assessment shared at this blog.
One issue that I am conscious about, and I have thought on talking openly but never found the time is the presence of grammar errors in my publications.
I know that my use of the language can be “rough” some times. And despite my limitations from using a second language living under a different language (I am currently living in Spain), sometimes even I can see the errors after I have published something.
My biggest problem is managing time to do it all with a time frame designed to publish pieces of original research in a weekly basis between 2013 and 2017. The challenge I set to myself was to analyse developments in a real time framework using 5 days, between Monday to Friday (other times even through the weekend), delivering an assessment at the end of each week. In total there have been published more than 200 publications.
But also with the process of analysing, comparing, observing, writing and designing visual contents, there are other activities which need attention.
I am keeping record of all my comments in any participation so I can track any continuity and coherence in my participation on discussions. Also I am constantly updating an excel database with all the visits to my blog in order to monitor the source of the visits and to control any misuse of the licensing.
At the same time I try to interact whenever I see something which calls my attention and in order to show that I am not just about being the center of attention over my own publications.
Then I also try to keep looking into developments which can validate or invalidate my assessments trying to avoid seeing my work get buried under the huge amount of stimuli published everywhere.
But, furthermore, at the same time I have to remember myself that I do not have a financial department taking care of monetary matters and that I have to look into processes of selection doing some research over the activities linked with institutions, the suitability of my profile with the positions offered and finding time filling out forms.
So, when I see a situation worth of being scrutinised, an idea to be published, I fight against time, creating imagery to support my pattern of thought altogether with the development of a coherent line of arguments capable to be worth of graving enough attention to overcome any grammar errors that I might have.
When I get immerse in the state of writing something that I deeply feel relevant, I focus my attention over the challenge of being able to build a path able to combine: being easy enough to follow (like a yellow brick road) and strong enough to represent the value of the information contained.
At the point of publishing the final piece I realise that every time I look into it I have something to add or to change, in a never ending process. Like looking into the finishing touches in a painting. Either you stop or you will react to every stimuli around you trying to project every change in your “mood” into the painting.
And since our mood can change just with the sound of the phone ringing, it becomes a never ending story. Ultimately, in the absence of an external editing department neither taking care of this matter, many times I prioritise the meaning of the information over the grammar.
Even, for some old publications, I have kept the grammar errors that I might identify later in time in order to maintain the genuity and authenticity of the original publication so the reader coming back to the publication will identify my effort towards defending the value of my publications and assessments as they stand over time.
So I apologise for the grammar errors that you might find in my publications.
I only hope that whatever the language is applied around the world to discuss my publications at least I have been able to transmit the same message to all of you.
The current situation (June 2017) is pretty much defined by uncertainty.
My posture addressing the dynamics that we see might differ from main stream since those are heavily relying on oceanic temperatures as triggers. I actually follow a different point of view.
My assessments take SST as subsequent conditions driven by wind shear. So the interaction between masses of air in circulation allow or inhibit SST developments. Once the scenario is built on SST this becomes a “battle field” conditioning the subsequent interaction between the following masses of air and the characteristics of the “ground” where the game will be played (sort of speak). Like the effect of the ice conditions in an ice hockey match.
This year we have seen the Arctic absorbing strong perturbations from mid-latitudinal circulation. And I believe that the following developments that we have seen through January at the West coast of EEUU and the following over Europe, as well as the recent atmospheric dynamics over India, are all related with the state of the circulation across the Arctic, and that the mixing zone between Arctic and midlatitudinal masses over the oceanic basins affects the developments at the Equator.
As I have said in previous assessments, I believe that the Arctic is not amplifying the effect of increasing heat retention in the atmosphere, it will be the Equator the area which will develop such reaction.
However, the shape and form for such energetic dynamics can be as surprising as reducing the number of hurricanes (due to the difficulty to condensate energy in a small location) whilst finding more energetic developments at higher latitudes. And if a hurricane forms, it might become unpredictable due to the rapidly changing nature of the environmental characteristics of the atmosphere.
That is my humble opinion.
Some recap on previous publications
|October 21, 2014||(Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (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.
At the beginning of this project in 2013, the lack of papers following similar approach as those followed in this project presented a challenge which goes beyond publishing in scientific journals. Such challenge was confirmed in 2014 by direct communication with Prof Jennifer Francis by email (in full here).
From the publication October 16, 2015
|October 16, 2015||SST Anomalies and Heat Waves. Are They Not All Just Heat Displacements? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
Not only the state of the atmospheric and oceanic currents have allowed the intrusion of warmer than normal masses of “heat” but also, that the conditions at the location were favourable to also retain the heat.
Based on that point of view I believe that there is a question which has been overlooked. Not only what makes the conditions to induce displacements of heat in location and time, but moreover, which are the conditions which allow those displacements of heat to be transferred and settle in location?
As the First Law of Thermodynamics implies, matter and energy can not be created or destroyed (only converted between the two). Likewise, heat -the movement of energy from a hotter location to a cooler location- is never eliminated, but only moved elsewhere.
And therefore, we have to think on where is the heat being transferred coming from?, and which are the thermal conductivity characteristics of the medium carrying and retaining the heat?
When we study the behaviour of our environment there is a common agreement over the idea of that it is in constant change. That idea implies to assume that the environment is sensitive to pressures (internal and external) triggering those changes. Furthermore, the combination of both ideas, a sensitive environment in constant change, can only be understood considering that the stability of any pattern is only constant for as long as the conditions under which it happens keep constant.
So, for how long can we expect and project future patterns of behaviour in any of the actual sources of variation identified when our environment is under constant transformation?
Some situations in our environment (anomalies and oscillations) have been “shaped” with the effort of “standardising” patterns in order to predict outcomes. From Solar activity to Atmospheric and Oceanic dynamics, those standardizations can serve a purpose in a particular period of time, but they are not settled and should not be expected to keep constant over time under the pressure from constant transformations over those same factors which are involved in driving their performance, such as atmospheric, land and ocean composition and structure.
What if the NAO as it was defined by Barnston and Livezey 1987, was just a position in the atmospheric circulation as part of a transition accommodating new pressures and its standardization does not longer apply (more discussion here)?
What if the ENSO is more dependant than dominant over the result of alterations in some other parts of the circulation outside the Pacific, either atmospheric or Oceanic? (more discussion here)
Based on previous observations (choose category and look at the posts related or more on thermal conductivity here, applying perspective here and here, climatic drift here, keeping an eye over Atlantic developments here, Pacific developments here, Arctic developments here and here, and Solar activity here) and present conditions, I believe that the driver behind all perturbations and oscillations identified in our planet lies on destabilizing the Arctic circulation from enhancing the capacity of the atmosphere to contain water vapour due to increasing conc of GHGs and aerosols.
From the publication
Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality. A Change Triggered from Changing the Order of The Factors (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
Posted on December 17, 2016.
“The Arctic is warming faster than other latitudes in the planet, like when you pour water into a glass continuously, there will be a moment in which the amount of water will start increasing faster outside the glass than inside.
Equatorial and Mid latitudes have already taken what they can from Kinetic energy. This volume is overloaded and it is expanding to higher latitudes and longitudes. This has increased the mixing ratio between parts of the atmosphere otherwise compartmentalised through thermal contrasts.”
There is a main stream line of thought which I find confusing.
In one hand, when considering Warming events in the Arctic, it has been suggested that the absence of Ice could be the cause behind it. In other hand, when the warming is considered at global scale, it is considered that the El Nino anomaly recorded through 2015 is behind the global warm up.
Both arguments implicitly assume that the absence of ice at the North Pole and the temperatures recorded at the Equatorial Pacific are sources of heat. Sources great enough to warm up Arctic circulation in the first case, and even the whole planetary atmosphere in the case of the ENSO.
That is confusing. We know that heat, or molecular kinetic energy, is not created, and neither destroyed by any form of “dissipation” (as I have seen argumented in other forums), only transformed between energy forms or transferred in location through matter. So, what confuses me is the lack of attention justifying the origin of the source for the heat measured in both events and the properties required to hold it, in both cases: Arctic warming and ENSO fluctuations.
If the Arctic gets abnormally warmer due to warmer waters, how warm have those waters to be in order to not only keep warm through winter but, at the same time, loose heat warming up an atmosphere which due to its dry composition should not even absorb any heat?
If the water at the Equatorial Pacific gets warmer than normal, how warm have to be those waters in order to be the source of enough heat to affect global temperatures?
But over all, if those events can be considered localised sources of heat, how can the planetary system accommodate enough kinetic energy to feed those local events while delivering simultaneously global temperatures above the mean? And all of that without showing variations in the radiation net balance between emitted and received?
Priming is an implicit memory effect in which exposure to one stimulus (i.e., perceptual pattern) influences the response to another stimulus.
If the level of transformation over our ecosystems reaches the point of increasing the sensitivity of our environment to react against changes over internal and external forces, we will face new challenges ahead making useless any previous knowledge built upon any type of previous standardised stereotypes.
We might see variations in Eq Pacific with no matching atmospheric patterns, the difference in atmospheric pressure over the latitudes at the North Atlantic (NAO) will no longer be predominant being overtaken by variations over difference in atmospheric pressure between the Ocean and the Continental European continent. And Solar activity will become a stronger player for a system driven by new rules dictated by the new composition and structure.
The challenge ahead is to understand that our environment might keep its state of a multicomponent system of green, brown and blue, but it might change entirely its attitude. (It might will or it might have already started.)
Those arguments offering a sense of relief when seeing green colours on satellite images I would like to suggest to think on what is the composition of the picture showing the colour. What kind of ecosystem is the green area able to hold and for how long? Is it populated or just an empty space of grass? How much biomass is being created and stored and for how long?
Satellites rely on echoes, surfaces emitting or reflecting wave lengths. And that can easily make us to chase tails. Temperature is not the problem and neither the answer. Is the matter which traps, holds, carry and release this heat and all the other forms of energy performing “work” throughout all events which we see in the weather patterns and atmospheric dynamics.
|February 9, 2017||From the publication February 9, 2017:
“The influence of kinetic warming at tropospheric level creates instability at higher levels”
Previous assessments discussing this topic:
“Indicating an increase in atmospheric mixing”
Look at present atmospheric dynamics and compare with previous assessments.
(See also other publications discussing “atmospheric mixing” assessments at the index in the timeline)
Which in turn induces a transition from Orbital Melting towards Kinetic Melting (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. (more on this follow link)
Since the publication of my theory in Oct 2014, at my blog and several groups here in LinkedIn (like the AGU, NASA and NOA groups), the immense response offered has been silence. In Feb 2015 I published a revision and since then a constant follow-up throughout more than 150 assessments. Still today, the majority of the response is silence. So I thank your open share. I might not use the right vocabulary, or the right data or the right reasoning. But when nobody is able to offer a consensus over what is going on, I wonder, what is right this days?.
Considering that I apply the concept of a “open ocean of mid latitudes” as an analogy to describe an atmospheric fluid which has not physical (continental) barriers, actually, we have seen such drift of cold chunks of Arctic air drifting over the European continent and the North American one in the recent past.
“Cold air cannot ascend”
The energy pool contained (kinetic energy) within cold air is so low that cold masses of air move passively. They move when they are pushed, heated up or sucked due to pressure variations from creating a vacuum effect. So, Warm masses of air “move” actively, they contain energy enabling them to expand doing work. Cold masses of air do not have energy available to do work, those do not “move” through doing work, they “drift” passively due to the work carried out by the energy contained by warmer masses of air.
One think might seem clear, the orbital tilt is not enough to justify the warm temperatures measured at the Arctic following gradients of temperature dictated by the Stefan-Boltzman theory, which indicates that we are moving from Orbital seasonality into Kinetic Seasonality. A change triggered from changing the order of the factors.
Also, solar drivers would have an impact following a gradient either in latitude and in altitude. Neither of both gradients are seen in the whole planet. Furthermore, the influence of Solar activity could not be restricted to drive changes differently between seasons or hemispheres, since the influence of the Sun is at global scale (northern and southern polar jet streams, polar vortexes, etc,…) and constantly through the whole motion of the Earth around the Sun independently of the tilt of the Earth. The Earth might tilt but it always has 50% of its surface and volume divided between exposure and shadow. So what happens in one 50% of the Earth has a counterpart through an equal 50% of volume, surface and time.
The Sun has been and it is involved in all forms of existence. Nothing new there. But knowing that the Sun interacts with us “through” our environment, like through a prism, how long before we identify the consequences from transforming such prism?
|March 23, 2017||Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.
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.
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:
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 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:
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:
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 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
For More related posts in this topic see timeline page to consult the index with all previous assessments published by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. (email@example.com)
After finishing my Masters in Biology Environmental Science in 2001, I have performed research at PhD level and worked inside and outside academia at institutions linked with environmental research and management. In 2013 I found myself in a period of transition searching for a new job’s position.
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 increasingly being focused on publishing pieces of original research applying my own perspective aiming to address relevant environmental questions.
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.
At this point Feb 2017, it has reached an stage in which its framework has been defined and it has been applied in follow-ups (in the timeline section at the bottom use ctrl+F: “follow-up”) delivering the subsequent conclusions. Therefore, the work which I present in my blog has become a chapter in my career, and I should focus now my attention on my new steps towards professional and personal growth.
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 its weekly bases in the absence of external financial support.
Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD In transition
I am 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. email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com
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 and at the Citations page.
I am living in Spain free to relocate geographically worldwide.
About this Project:
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.
This project published in a blog format, offers pieces of original research in environmental science, and a space for discussion, based on considering as a major factor limiting our understandings the lack of attention given to the gaps of knowledge existent. The concepts, measurements and parameters applied to address environmental synergistic interactions are too narrow and isolated from each other to understand their full meaning. Such circumstance induce to reach dogmatic patterns of thought to make the quickest conclusions in the absence of a better and clear idea describing what is happening.
In this Project I aim to address those limitations using observational analyses offering assessments over real time events considering those as proxies of significant value to make interpretations over global synergistic relationships.
Feedback is always welcome here and at my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com
Since 2002 I have performed research over the Atmospheric Dynamics interacting with the biota in the field of Aerobiology. In Oct 2013 I focused my attention over climatic dynamics and in Oct 2014 I published what I believe to be a valid theory explaining current developments in atmospheric dynamics. I shared my thoughts at my blog and several groups in LinkedIn (like the AGU, NASA and NOA groups) where the immense response offered has been silence.
In Feb 2015 I published a revision and since then a constant follow-up throughout more than 200 assessments. Still today, April 2017, the majority of the response is silence despite the amount of visits identified by all the SEO tools and the interactions and shares accounted. See the related stats at the Timeline page.
So I thank your open feedback and share.
Nowadays, there are many divisions between disciplines due to the isolated nature of their specific language and methodologies. I might not use the right vocabulary for all the fields which I discuss, or the right data or the right reasoning. But when nobody is able to offer a consensus over what it is going on, I wonder, what is right this days?.