Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s Approach on Atmospheric Dynamics and Climate Drift. July 2017 Follow-Up.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s Approach on Atmospheric Dynamics and Climate Drift. July 2017 Follow-Up.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. CV english and españolResume.

pdf available at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15362.58565



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 purposed with the aim to evaluate their value and veracity.

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).

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

“date: Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM 

Dear Francis,

I have been for a year looking into synergies and parameters which might regulate our climate at global scale and I would like to know your opinion about the accuracy of a theory that I am working on. Could you help me here?

My name is Diego Fdez-Sevilla. I am a Biologist with a PhD in Aerobiology. After couple of years doing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I am myself in a period of transition searching for a new job. However, in such competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in finding ways to stay active in research showing what I am capable of. Since without resources it is very difficult to create data with the standards to publish in scientific journals, I have started my own blog in which I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions.

Throughout several posts in my blog, I have explored the connections between Solar activity, Biological productivity, Polar vortex, Environmental Resilience, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Energy Balance and the Influence of Continentality on Extreme Climatic Events. Based on my criteria (always open for corrections) I have developed a theory about what I believe it has induced an increase in atmospheric water vapor content and, further I discuss its implications in atmospheric circulation, Jet Stream behaviour and weather system’s patterns.

Based on my previous research published in this blog and, the arguments pointed out in various assessment, I propose for open evaluation by the scientific community the theory of “Facing a reduced differential energy gradient in atmospheric circulation” and the consequent implications over Weather Patterns, Atmospheric Circulation and Atmospheric Oscillations.

In order for me to test the accuracy and validity of my arguments I would like to find feedback from a multidisciplinary audience. And here is where I ask for your help. I am aware of that you might be busy with your daily responsibilities so I understand that it could take you a while to reply. At the same time, I am cautious about how my own perspective about my own work is limited, and I am open to receive feedback giving me a reality check showing how un-relevant it can be the line of research that I address in my approach. Both options would be welcome. Before moving forward in the development of my thoughts I believe that I have to calibrate the accuracy of my conclusions and points of view.

You will find the most relevant posts in the following links:

  • New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) October 21, 2014


  • Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Thank you in advance.

If you don´t have time I would appreciate you could give me a brief reply so I can confirm that you have received this message.


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

Why there is no need for the Polar Vortex to break in order to have a wobbling Jet Stream and polar weather? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on 14 November 2014. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488)

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

“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

On December 24, 2014, I sent her my reply, which represents the final one since it has not been further communication:

“I just want to thank you for giving me a chance and read my ideas. What I wrote was after reading that Cohen proposed that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Artic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Artic Amplification in atm heat absorption. I believe that all of that is a consequence and not the trigger. That is a symptom and not the cause. My theory tries to find common ground to explain the cause leading to Artic amplification, blocking patterns associated to deep cyclonic events, a pause in atmospheric T raise, increase in kinetic energy dispersed over the whole hemisphere, water flash floods, as well as frequent  trans-equatorial circulation between hemispheres at jet stream level. I will try to find data to support my theory and I am open to reconsider all my assumptions. That’s why I really appreciate your input.”

Review in progress

Based on adopting what it could be considered the role of an outsider offering an assessment over the subject, I reached conclusions which moved aside from main stream publications and even deviate from the course followed by academically established leading theories like the theory of Arctic Amplification.

After building an internal pattern of thought generated from previous training in the field of Aerobiology addressing the interaction between atmospheric dynamics and environmental processes, in 2013 I took the endeavour of attempting to reach an understanding over the components driving the worldwide and multidisciplinary debate confronting postures over current climatic developments.

Throughout three years I have shared in this blog a line of research offering assessments in real time at weekly basis. A major challenge in this process it has been to achieve a methodology avoiding incorporating bias from unchallenged patterns of thought (or hidden agendas) which would limit the scope of the analysis carried out taking for granted what it could be a representation of unchallenged dogmas subjected to changes through time.

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 all the phases of our environment; as Solid (biotic and none biotic), Liquid and Gaseous.

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.


The Challenge

The challenge behind following an independent line of research is showing to be overwhelming.

It is very hard to find the acceptance of recognising the potential behind the research generated by independent research when this challenges the criteria of renowned scientists, like Prof Jennifer. And therefore, the incorporation of the research offered into the academic debate becomes a representation of the barriers existent around the so called establishment. An establishment which despite its efforts, is not free from carrying a form of bias due to an unconsciously narrowed point of view developed from following on unchallenged dogmas.

So, what happens when a new perspective from an outsider challenges such criteria, when it challenges the establishment?

One option is to call it suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence.

However, 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. Even by Prof Jenifer Francis.

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.
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.)

Suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence.

It has been a frequent practise to re-share previous assessments in time addressing developments occurring with posteriority. This strategy aims to allow any institution to perform their own research exploring the scenario discussed in previous assessments and their validity through time.

I have personally offered the global assessment on climatic developments and weather dynamics that I have published in my blog for consideration and validation to all institutions and organizations I could. The WMO, EU JRC, MetOffice, AGU, NOAA, AU Bureau of Meteorology, Japanese Met Service, EU Copernicus program, ECMWF, Oxford Univ, Reading Univ, KNMI, … And my research has received visits from more than 1000 scientific related organizations wordlwide including the previous ones. I am sure that the validity of the conclusions which I have managed to reach, without the infrastructure and human resources available at all those institutions, could be easily be evaluated by them. In case my assessments are verified it would save a lot of time in a current fast paced transition between weather patterns. In case my conclusions are considered inaccurate by any institution I would have no problem in considering the arguments on such evaluation as a positive feedback worth of being implemented in a discussion contrasting with actual developments.

I believe that the most scientifically accurate way of validating my assessments is by letting others to apply their own methodology and capacity for observation and analysis to address the developments which I have pointed out throughout my research.

July 2017

From previous publication:

May 6, 2016 Climate and Hadley Circulation. Research Update May 2016 (by Diego Fdez-sevilla)

The developments in atmospheric circulation observed at the present time seem to keep supporting my assessments not only on the Hadley circulation. Accordingly, the evolution of the atmospheric dynamics addressed throughout my line of research highlights the dominance in the directionality of the influence of atmospheric conditions at Mid-Latitude into Arctic circulation. Something which goes opposite to the directionality defended by the Theory of Arctic Amplification.

Ultimately, based on my research, the implications derived from seeing Mid-Latitudinal climatic regimes moving higher in latitude incorporates relevant uncertainties, not only over the developments of atmospheric dynamics, but more importantly, over the development of feedback loops with terrestrial ecosystems.

Considering atmospheric and terrestrial interactions conformed by Biotic and non-biotic components and processes, and based on the developments pointed out through my research, those synergistic interactions have the potential to develop patterns in environmental evolution which will be sustained only temporally, in a period of transition.

“Since the Arctic has the lowest energy pool of the entire North Hemisphere, and any process of amplification requires an investment of energy aside the energy being received, the conclusions delivered by my line of research dismisses any type of amplification in the Arctic circulation. Moreover, following the arguments applied in previous discussions over atmospheric dynamics and ENSO circulation, the amount of energy being absorbed at the Arctic would have an indirect effect over the conditions at the most energised part of the atmosphere, the Equator. There, at the Equator, is where we might see in the near future, the use of energy amplifying processes yet being considered too mild to become relevant.”

July 19, 2016 Atmospheric Dynamics. Foreseeable, At The Moment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

I can only repeat what I have said in previous assessments in atmospheric developments. The mixing ratio is increasing and it is not going to follow the same pattern through time. But now it seems foreseeable.

In a previous publication in this blog I pointed out already that it is time to be vigilant about seeing repeated what has happened in previous years:

As part of the discussion I pointed out the little attention given to see the development of three tropical systems at the same time in the same location over the Pacific with and without El Niño conditions:

2014 Trio Low P Pacific

2015 Trio Low P PacificWell, guess what is happening on 18th July 2016?:

Lows Pacific July 2016 Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Similar dynamics have started to appear in 2017. Foreseeable at the moment.

Suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence?

18th July 2017 East Pacific.


SST Anomaly 13 July 2017


My position over the ENSO-SST-Atmosphere interactions are part of the embedded links found in the present publication but also I have published specific assessments and discussions over the ENSO, El Niño, Pacific and global dynamics and SST in previous publications found at the the index in the main page of the blog.

Synchronicity does not explain causality, and I believe that there are many events which have been overlooked based on such misleading approach.

I am aware of the implications that Solar brings into the table. I would humbly invite anyone to consider reading through those publications and assessments which I have published in relation with Solar forcing in my blog looking at the index page and the embedded links in the articles.

In a nutshell my position is based on that whatever the Sun brings to the planet, it will go “through” the atmosphere. Therefore, the atmosphere behaves as the composition and configuration of the molecules in a prism defines the behaviour of any wave moving across.

This is a single piece from the whole line of research published between Oct 2013 and July 2017. Explore the main page and the index with all the publications in order to contextualise its full meaning. The line of research shared in my blog has been generated without external economic or institutional support but my own investment of time, energy and savings. In March 2017 the budget reserved for this project has ended and its weekly basis time frame discontinued until new forms of economic and institutional support are incorporated into the project.

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?

Settled knowledge.

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?

  • Should we expect that Solar variations are going to have the same effect over the climate as thousand years ago? What is it so similar between both situations? (more here)
  • Should we consider the NAO, the ENSO, the MJO, settled patterns behaving as constants over time from which we can make projections or just mere features as part of a transition through time? (more here) Has anybody considered that the reason why there are discrepancies between years with the same phase signal might point to this idea?

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.

And the repercussions follow a pattern coherent with those discussed in previous posts such as A roller coaster of temperatures in South Europe and   “A climate between waters”.


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.”

Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

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:Feb 2017. Polar Jet Stream and Atmospheric Dynamics. Follow-up over Past and Present Conditions (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

“The influence of kinetic warming at tropospheric level creates instability at higher levels”

Previous assessments discussing this topic:

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, PhD.) 14 Nov 2014

Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)2016/10/25

“Indicating an increase in atmospheric mixing”

Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)2016/09/14

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)

See also

Closing remarks

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?.

Some thoughts

Have you ever considered “atmospheric icebergs” drifting into the “open ocean” of mid-latitudes …?

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.

Ups and Downs on Climatic Assessments. A Matter of Multiple Perspectives from the Same Point of View (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)

How much influence has the transformation being forced into all parts of the environment over pre-established energy flows, beyond the NH?

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.

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.”


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.

For More related posts in this topic see timeline page to consult the index with all previous assessments published by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. (d.fdezsevilla@gmail.com)

About myself:

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?.

Licencia de Creative Commons
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Data policy The products processed by "Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD" are made available to the public for educational and/or scientific purposes, without any fee on the condition that you credit "Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD" as the source. Copyright notice: © Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD 2013-2019 orcid: orcid.org/0000-0001-8685-0206 and the link to its source at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress or permanent DOI found at Reearchgate. Profile and verified scientific activity also at: https://publons.com/researcher/3387860/diego-fernandez-sevilla/ Should you write any scientific publication on the results of research activities that use Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD products as input, you shall acknowledge the Diego Fdez-Sevilla's PhD Project in the text of the publication and provide an electronic copy of the publication (d.fdezsevilla@gmail.com). If you wish to use the Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD products in advertising or in any commercial promotion, you shall acknowledge the Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Project and you must submit the layout to Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD for approval beforehand (d.fdezsevilla@gmail.com). The work here presented has no economic or institutional support. Please consider to make a donation to support the means for making sustainable the energy, time and resources required. Also any sponsorship or mentoring interested would be welcome. Intellectual Property This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/bibliography/citations#! For those publications missing at the ResearchGate profile vinculated with this project DOIs can be generated on demand by request at email: d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com. **Author´s profile: Born in 1974. Bachelor in General Biology, Masters degree "Licenciado" in Environmental Sciences (2001, Spain). PhD in Aerobiology (2007, UK). Lived, acquired training and worked in Spain, UK, Germany and Poland. I have shared the outcome from my work previous to 2013 as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After 12 years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, in 2013 I found myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my own line of research. In the current competitive scenario, in order to demonstrate my capacities instead of just moving my cv waiting for my next opportunity to arrive, I decided to invest my energy and time in opening my own line of research sharing it in this blog. In March 2017 the budget reserved for this project has ended and its weekly basis time frame discontinued until new forms of economic and/or institutional support are incorporated into the project. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this platform and at LinkedIn has proved to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community as well as for publication in scientific journals. However, without a position as member of an institution, it becomes very challenging to be published. I hope that this handicap do not overshadow the value of my achievements and that the Intellectual Property Rights generated with the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in similar lines of research. **Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome as well as any approach exploring professional opportunities.** In this blog I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions. Furthermore, I try to break the barrier that academic publications very often offer isolating scientific findings from the general public. In that way I address those topics which I am familiar with, thanks to my training in environmental research, making them available throughout my posts. (see "Framework and Timeline" for a complete index). At this moment, 2019, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects, don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) 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 DOIs found at the Framework and Timeline page and ResearchGate. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2018. Filling in or/and Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/ ***
This entry was posted in Aerobiology, Aerosols, Energy Balance, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Influence of Continentality, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Water vapour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s Approach on Atmospheric Dynamics and Climate Drift. July 2017 Follow-Up.

  1. 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.

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

  3. Related to previous publication:
    Worst than a change is a pattern of no change ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
    Posted on December 22, 2016

    Atmospheric Dynamics, GHG’s, Thermal Conductivity and Polar Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
    Posted on April 6, 2016

    Discussions where I participated at LinkedIn a year ago related with the present publication and my position on the current situation at the Arctic:

    2016/11/17 On “Arctic Ice cover. GHGs and Solar”: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6204926915006996480/

    2016/11/19 On Arctic Warming processes. The freezer in your house”

    2017/01/25 On “Atmospheric Icebergs”: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6229715005508452352/


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.