Climate. A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. The “Drama”, Character Driven VS Plot Driven (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


Climate. A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. The “Drama”, Character Driven VS Plot Driven (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Registered in Pdf: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18509.13289 by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. CV english and español. Resume. Interdisciplinary Skills applied in the line of research presented.- Index for all analyses published. – Shares and Feedback at LinkedIn Slideshare CV english and español. Resume


Index

Scenarios.

  • Drama: a piece of writing that tells a story and is performed on a stage.
  • The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture written by Stephen Carpenter: “Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now (link) “
  • Climate drift.
  •  Extracts from previous publications

Observations, Interpretations and Conclusions

A Scenario created from a point of view

Climate, character driven VS plot driven. What`s the difference?

  • The Plot
  • The scenario and the plot
  • Time. A scenario or A character? Or both …

Discussing Current Scenarios and Characters

  • Global Cooling VS Global Warming
  • About “Characters”. Climatic Indexes.

My scenario vs Your scenario. My interpretation, Your Interpretation.

  • Some current patterns are similar to those discussed in previous publications

Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD’s line of research. The Drama and the story line.

  • Review in progress
  • The Challenge
  • Suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence
  • July 2017
  • Some recap on previous publications

About myself

About this Project


Scenarios


Drama: a piece of writing that tells a story and is performed on a stage.

Since drama presents us directly with scenes which are based on people’s actions and interactions, characters play a dominant role in this genre and therefore deserve close attention. The characters in plays can generally be divided into major characters and minor characters, depending on how important they are for the plot. A good indicator as to whether a character is major or minor is the amount of time and speech as well as presence on stage he or she is allocated.

Occasionally even virtually non-existent characters may be important but this scenario is rather exceptional. An example can be found in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, where the action centres around the arrival of the mysterious Godot, whose name even appears in the title of the play although he never actually materialises on stage.

Major characters are frequently, albeit not exclusively, multi-dimensional and dynamic (round character) while minor characters often remain mono-dimensional and static (flat character, see Character Dimensions in narrative prose).

Multi-dimensional characters display several (even conflicting) character traits and are thus reasonably complex. They also tend to develop throughout the plot (hence, dynamic), though this is not necessarily the case.

Mono-dimensional characters, on the other hand, can usually be summarised by a single phrase or statement, i.e., they have only few character traits and are generally merely types. Frequently, mono-dimensional characters are also static, i.e., they do not develop or change during the play.

Sometimes the quality of characters can also depend on the subgenre to which a play belongs because genres traditionally follow certain conventions even as far as the dramatis personae, i.e., the dramatic personnel, are concerned. According to Aristotle’s Poetics, characters in tragedies have to be of a high social rank so that their downfall in the end can be more tragic (the higher they are, the lower they fall), while comedies typically employ ‘lower’ characters who need not be taken so seriously and can thus be made fun of. Since tragedies deal with difficult conflicts and subject matters, tragic heroes are usually complex. According to Aristotle, they are supposed to be neither too good nor too bad but somewhere ‘in the middle’, which allows them to have some tragic ‘flaw’ (hamartia) that ultimately causes their downfall (Aristotle 1953: 1453a). Since tragic heroes have almost ‘average’ characteristics and inner conflicts, the audience can identify more easily with them, which is an important prerequisite for what Aristotle calls the effect of catharsis (literally, a ‘cleansing’ of one’s feelings), i.e., the fact that one can suffer with the hero, feel pity and fear, and through this strong emotional involvement clarify one’s own state of mind and potentially become a better human being. (Source)

Scenarios

The Robert H. MacArthur Award is given biannually to an established ecologist in mid-career for meritorious contributions to ecology, in the expectation of continued outstanding ecological research. In 2000 Stephen Carpenter received the Robert H. MacArthur Award from the Ecological Society of America.

The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture written by Stephen Carpenter: “Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now (link) “, contains a concept which I have tried strongly to emphasize throughout my line of research published in this blog.

Scenarios are a method for bringing future considerations into present decisions when prediction is not possible (Schwartz 1996, van der Heijden 1996). Their purpose is to broaden perspectives, open new questions, expose possibilities for surprise, and raise challenges to conventional thinking (Greeuw et al. 2000). A scenario is a narrative of a possible future. The scenario is not a prediction; it is a plausible future that merits consideration. Scenarios are considered not singly but in sets of three or four scenarios that collectively represent a useful range of ambiguous and un- known outcomes (Schwartz 1996, van der Heijden 1996). Differences among the scenarios embrace a range of ambiguous, uncontrollable aspects of the future. The scenarios provide a framework for finding robust decisions that have acceptable consequences no matter how events turn out. Scenarios may not lead to a unique optimal decision. Instead, they make it possible to compare possible actions in light of diverse models, multiple causes, and ambiguous, uncontrollable aspects of the future.

Scenarios encourage action, whereas uncertainties sometimes lead to doubt, inaction, and further analysis. Honest and accurate assessment of uncertainty is an important function of science, yet we need more than just a measure of uncertainty. Scenarios present the range of possibilities in tangible, evocative statements about alternative futures. By bringing alternative possibilities to life in the form of realistic narratives, scenarios may motivate action. Scenarios bring science into decisions that must be made now, rather than after further research.

Throughout my publications in this blog I have offered the description of a scenario where our planetary system seems to become dominated by Free Energy.

In the framework presented throughout the line of research published in this blog (and researchgate) it has been considered “Climate” as being defined by the amount of energy free to do work. In other words, energy free to promote weather events. Accordingly, in my research I define Climate by the amount and state of energy in circulation, and Weather by the use of this energy.

Consequently, with the definition applied for Climate and Weather, 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.

Please see extracts from previous publications and follow the links to read the full assessment with all imagery incorporated:

February 21, 2014 Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27974.98884

in 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 2013 IPCC Summary for Policymakers ...

October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440

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 “Artic Amplification” is a symptom and not a causation of atmospheric dynamics. Arctic circulation does not amplify a process but on the contrary, it reflects the consequence of absorbing the influence from mid-latitude conditions. (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.

Atmospheric patterns observed.

The moisture gained in the Equator is being introduced in atmospheric circulation at higher latitudes and altitudes fuelling cyclonic events with more strength and depth than we were used to see.

The depth of the systems (like the one on the 21st Oct/14 in the Atlantic) goes from surface level up to 250hPa, interacting with the Jet stream and the Polar vortex leading to a split in the Jet stream towards the Mediterranean sea. This situation has created a disruption in atmospheric circulation triggering early snow fall over locations such as Turkey, Iran and Central Asia (accuweather.com).

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

Similarly cyclonic events are getting stronger and stationary in location also in the northern Pacific reproducing so-called “Blocking patterns” (Following figures).

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. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

The development of the human specie has reached such scenario. There is no natural pressure restricting its development but the limitation of the planet’s resources in itself. So yes, I believe that its development without restriction can alter the planetary ecosystem. In order to have the kind of impact required to alter an ecosystem “at planetary scale” it would have to come in the form of a highly “movable” factor, easy to be incorporated and spread in the natural planetary system, and capable of keeping a “constant” effect over the ecosystem’s sensitivity independently of natural oscillations. And that it could well be played by the role of introducing CO2 in the atmosphere at a constant rate. I don´t see the debate about if the impact can happen. I see the debate about how is it going to develop the evolution of possible scenarios under the constant interference over the Earth’s natural resilience by having anthropogenic interference becoming increasingly participant in primordial aspects of our ecosystem. What we see in our planet as natural oscillations I see them as the pendulum movement resultant from moving energy from one state to another. If you introduce or take energy from the system, the cycle will change. And CO2 is key here.

After a year applying my own perception to analyse and discuss the synergistic nature of environmental factors I managed to develop and propose a theory trying 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 and prominent snow fall.

What is new in this theory when compared with Arctic Amplification?

The theory of Arctic Amplification has introduced the consideration of 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 the work published previously by scientists  Judah CohenMasato Mori, Colin Summerhayes, Coumou and Ted Shepherd, whom all together supported the theory of that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Arctic ice to melt. Decreased snow cover decreases albedo and enhance heat absorption. Ultimately, the enhanced capacity of the Arctic to absorb heat would lead to “amplify” atmospheric heat absorption already being fuelled with GHGs. 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 are the mechanisms inducing to Arctic Amplification as a side effect of a wider principle. That it is a symptom and not a causation.

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

I am looking at the implications of having the global circulation absorbing constant increases in atm CO2 inducing Water vapour to be spread over the global atmospheric circulation. 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 compartmentalization and weather patterns in the global atmospheric circulation, being water vapour the carrier of the energy being homogeneously dispersed all over the atmosphere.

In order to expose this theory to public review by a multidisciplinary audience I have shared it in several groups at LinkeIn but also I have sent few emails asking for feedback to relevant scientists in the field.

My query was simple, I just would like to have feedback on the assessment that I presented in these two posts presenting my arguments:

Posts explaining the theory “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in Atmospheric Circulation”.

On 17th of December 2014, Jennifer Francis sent her answer to me (in full here):

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.

Based on her advice I decided to look into some data and revisit the accuracy of my theory when confronted with data sets and observations.

Anomalies

The differential thermal contrast between Polar and subtropical regions creates a barrier, or Jet Stream, separating both parts of the atmospheric circulation. The influence of CO2, increasing the heat absorption capacity of the atmosphere, would be amplified at Subtropical regions due to the synergistic relation with other GHG, Water Vapour, which is less abundant at latitudes with low temperatures. This situation would be contained momentarily by the barrier generated from such thermal contrast between both areas, Sub-tropical and Polar, in a feedback loop accumulating heat absorption by constant release of CO2 and increasing concentrations of Water vapour.

However, this scenario of constant contact of one side of the Jet stream with the other, and the global circulation in altitude, slowly but steady it would wear off the differential thermal contrast between regions weakening the strength of the Jet Stream barrier.

Comparing the differences in annual mean content of Water in the atmosphere between two periods of 12 years comprehending recent dates (2000-2012) and past periods (1960-1972 and 1980-1992), in both cases the results show an increase in the amount of water contained at the North Hemisphere towards the Arctic Pole.

Similar anomalies are found when comparing the actual atmospheric temperature (5th March 2015) with the mean from previous records.

With the weakening of the Jet Stream, the volume of space to be occupied by warm air would expand into the Polar regions. Accordingly, highs associated with the subsidence of the Hadley cell move several degrees of latitude toward the poles even before the summer heat arrives (see following image on Pressure at Mean Sea Level 5th and 6th March 2015).

The expansion would allow for the atmosphere to keep absorbing energy through GHGs without increasing its temperature globally whereas increasing atmospheric pressure at higher latitudes.

That could explain the “pause” in global Temperature raise and yet, why it has not dropped. The weakening of the Jet Stream would allow more frequent intrusions of masses of air from both sides, inducing sudden and extreme changes in weather patterns for Northern and Southern latitudes. Once the barrier weakens, “warm and wet” currents of air would reach further North being dragged by High pressures moving at higher latitudes without the opposition of the Jet Stream.

What has induced an increase in atmospheric water vapour content?

So far, and among others, I have being exploring the implications of understanding the role of water vapour in a global system under a constant environmental transformation.

Throughout several posts in this 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 will share my thoughts on what I believe is what it has induced an increase in atmospheric water vapour content and its implications in atmospheric circulation.

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

Solar activity could increase the temperature of the masses getting radiated (water or land). It could increase evaporation from oceans but water vapor needs more factors to be sustained in atmospheric circulation for longer periods of time and reach further in latitudes. Thermodynamic laws dictate the amount of water which can be contained in the atmosphere. More evaporation in a clean sky (low aerosol and green house gasses content) could induce more rain in tropospheric circulation but it wouldn´t stand for long in the atmosphere as the energy within it would dissipate. However, if the amount of greenhouse gasses increases, the energy from the cyclonic event would not feel so greatly the differential gradient in energy with the surrounding so it would not dissipate its energy so easily.

Based on my theory, Greenhouse gases store energy which leads to an increase in global temperature. This increase in T, altogether with synergistic effects of aerosols, allows more water vapor to be contained in the atmosphere, which consequently adds more energy into the atmosphere in form of latent heat and kinetic energy. Therefore, this increase in atmospheric energy being carried and distributed all over the hemisphere would infuse power into atmospheric patterns at the same time that it would also reduce the differential energetic gradient between cyclonic events and their surroundings in order to dissipate the energy carried within. Consequently, the energy of those cyclonic events (Low and High pressures) would persist for longer throughout time, altitude and location. Such scenario would decrease the strength of barriers build upon steep differential gradients like the Polar Jet Stream. Furthermore, it would increase the frequency in which masses of warm air from low latitudes would get introduced in polar regions as well as masses of polar air would move across the Jet Stream across latitudes moving further South. Following the 2nd Thermodynamics law on entropy, having decreased the differential in gradient of energy between cyclonic events and its surroundings would increase the life span of those events. That would induce an increase in the accumulation of energy in form of latent heat, water vapour and wind strength. Such build-up in power, without dissipating the energy contained within, would give cyclonic events enough strength to interfere with atmospheric barriers like the Polar Jet Stream breaking it, and also, would allow them to adopt locations that originate blocking patterns as those we can see as High Pressure Systems situated in the North Pacific Ocean and also in the Atlantic Ocean.

May 7, 2015 Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Rsearchgate  DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36812.51848

Throughout the publications that I post in this blog I have looked into all the parts of the ecosystem which might play a role driving atmospheric circulation and climatic events.

All those previous publications show enough evidence linking atmospheric processes with inert and active mechanisms happening over continental land surface. Inert mechanisms such as the change in Albedo due to changes in Land use and Cover as a result of urbanization, deforestation or agricultural practises and the presence of natural water sources involved in Atmospheric circulation. And Active mechanisms such as those defining the relationship between biological productivity and atmospheric cloud developments, and human activity affecting inert mechanisms and atmospheric composition (aerosols and gases).

Looking at the extension of the transformation imposed over our environment and natural systems, we are facing the possibility of loosing the capacity for our environment to absorb interferences from external forces, and therefore, carrying ourselves with the task to idealize forms of replicating such capacity (at cost of expending more resources).

Greenhouse is a term which defines what our planet might become. But not only because of greenhouse gases might retain heat and alter our atmospheric dynamics, but also, because the production system imposed over our environment is becoming closer to what it is a greenhouse, domesticating space and species, requiring constant care and investment in energy and resources.

The energy balance applied to describe our system contemplates the fact that our Sun is the only source of energy and that the excess of energy reaching our planet gets dissipated into space so the net balance between E entrance and release is zero.

And yet, changes in Land cover and Atmospheric Composition would affect the capacity for the system to reflect, absorb (through Carbon fixation) and dissipate Energy due to changes in Albedo, photosynthetic storage capacities and Greenhouse gases composition. When, at the same time, human activity has become the second strongest force introducing Energy into the system, released from breaking Carbon bonds which were created throughout photosynthesis fixing Solar Energy in an inert form throughout millennia.

Changes in Solar Radiation throughout Solar cycles have been considered strong enough to have an impact over our climatic system from a variation of 0.1%.

So what would imply to have a variation of more than 40% for the only force absorbing the impact from variations in the Energy balance, our Environment?

Domesticating Nature:

  • reduces the capacity for Natural systems to absorb perturbations, potentially breaking the stability of our climatic system, but also
  • diminish its capacity to fix Energy, whiles
  • releases stored energy into the system.

What we call “Energy consumption” actually implies that Energy gets liberated from an inert form, fossil carbon bonds, into active forms of energy. Energy which does not disappear through consumption, it only gets liberated, transformed and incorporated into the system.

llnl2008energyflow

The 2008 Energy flow diagram for the US (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).

Image1491

Our environment is facing the challenge of coping with a second source incorporating Energy into the system coming from human activity. And, in comparison with previous periods of time, thanks to our domesticating system, our environment is not fully developed or strong enough, to confront the challenge of having even more sources of energy coming into place, like volcanic eruptions.

The biotic component of our environmental system is the only one capable of interacting against thermodynamic entropy, against instability. And for as long as Human activity can not  replicate such mechanisms in equilibrium with the resources consumed, it might be time to think about domesticating Human activities and invest on strategically maintaining the capabilities derived from wild natural systems to absorb perturbation and interact taming our weather and climatic transitions.

September 8, 2015 A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1697.5847

I believe that the present weather events, altogether with the tornado seen in Venice on July, represent some of the new “Drops of Weather” coming over to say that the Summer, as we know it, is coming to an end.

The reason behind it seems to be the sporadic and unpredictable behaviour of the Jet stream, which not only is wobbly in latitude, but also in the vertical profile of the atmosphere. Accordingly, we can see that when it comes to lower levels from 300hPa induces alterations in the thermodynamical behaviour of the tropospheric circulation. In turn, when this cold air touches the lower level of our atmosphere, activates the energy accumulated in the Water vapour contained in it as latent heat, delivering new forms of energy; kinetic provoking strong winds, electrostatic generating lightnings and potential carried in the mass of all the water coming from its gaseous state into liquid or solid precipitation.

I have already discussed what is my theory about what it is happening that it is generating such a wobbly jet stream in latitude and altitude. This theory was published in a previous post and it points out the incorporation of masses of water vapour into polar latitudes as consequence of CO2 forcing as the cause wearing out the strength of the Polar Jet Stream.

I also have suggested that such incorporation of masses of water vapour into Polar Latitudes follow channels which are linked with persistent cyclonic events in the Atlantic and the Pacific. The present patterns seen in the circulation over the Pacific and the Atlantic are consistent with those proposed in this theory.

Ultimately, if this theory is right and weather patterns are incorporating water vapour into Polar latitudes, it would affect:

  • The strength of the Polar Jet Stream becoming wobbly from the bottom up, from tropospheric circulation forcing instead of from the stratospheric Polar vortex, (more here)
  • Introduction of water vapour into Arctic Polar latitudes would decrease temperature gradients in the Pole reducing ice and snow cover, (more here)
  • that would induce ice melting which in turn would affect SST and Oceanic circulation in the Atlantic and Pacific. That would explain the cold anomaly in SST in the North Atlantic, thus the AMOC and global thermohialine circulation going around the Antarctic and arriving at the Pacific.(more here)
  • Arctic Polar masses of air getting warmed up would become involved in translatitudinal circulation from the Atlantic and the Pacific through the Arctic, in a breathing like cycle. That would open a new channel for balancing gradients of atmospheric pressure between the atmospheric masses of air above both Oceans. That would explain the synchronicity between Low pressures observed in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, (more here).
  • An interconnection between Atlantic and Pacific atmospheric circulation through the Arctic would affect Equatorial winds. That would have an impact over the distribution of SST being dominated by them, being the most relevant the ENSO.(more here and here)
  • Furthermore,  new channels breaking the restriction of keeping warm masses of air bellow Polar circulation would release the thermodynamical limits for equatorial latitudes to absorb water and heat, therefore, increasing thermal conductivity towards upper latitudes. That would explain heat waves moving upward in latitude.(more here and here)
  • At the same time, incorporating the possibility for subtropical circulation to occupy the volume of space at Polar latitudes would allow the global circulation to absorb more energy without steep increases in temperature thanks to the extra volume added to be occupied.(more here)
  • An homogenization in the amount of energy carried in the atmosphere by water vapour would induce a decrease between gradients of energy. That would allow atmospheric events to persist in location and time due to the reduced capacity of the atmosphere to dissipate its energy.(more here)
  • The amount of energy being accommodated by the atmosphere would behave like electricity, being tamed by the capacity of the surroundings to absorb and conduct it. But, like a short circuit, the energy contained in the atmosphere, could overwhelm the capacity for the surroundings to cope with it in a smoothly manner, triggering abrupt discharges from energy in latent heat form carried by the water vapour, into potential energy carried by the masses of water in form of hail and  rain, and kinetic energy generating strong winds. All those forms of energy capable of decimating crops, houses and even killing animals as we have seen in some videos in this post.(more here).

The level of certainty that I have gathered from statistical analyses comes in the form of the following chart

Diegto Fdez-Sevilla

December 3, 2015 Energy. Looking For Sources of Something We Waste. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

We need Energy to survive. And then, we need more energy to survive… with style.

Formal practices of survival require energy to obtain more energy to support our style of live. Which in turn, demands energy to address the consequences of having to deal with the residuals generated in the process of production and furthermore, the waste produced due to misuse and excess.

So in order to avoid the negative repercussions derived from our systems of production and consumption the conclusion achieved is that we “need” to find alternative sources of energy to keep consuming increasing amounts of energy.

Well, I wonder, why are we looking for sources of something that we already waste?

The answer might be, because the system in place to obtain and consume energy is not sustainable. But such scenario has raised from a very narrow mind set behind it which accepts huge amounts of energy wasted for as long as the production cover demands, maintaining losses as part of control measures over market competency. And that is where trading values and assets come in place, as it always has done.

Energetically sustainable, how much energy is invested versus how much is produced which makes the work that covers a need.

Energy stored in Fossil materials (coal, petrol, gas) has been handled with very poor energetic efficiency. And same has happened in other sectors like food manipulation. If we choose to invest all “our eggs” into renewables, the only way to make it sustainable comes through assessing the mind set applied.

We have to remember that most of the technology relies on heating up water, from burning fossil fuels to nuclear and even solar. We are still in the Steam Era mind set.

Based on the current state of the energy infrastructure, I believe that the challenge ahead is being presented in not underestimating the amount of energy wasted throughout the development, maintenance, use and disposal of our old and new technologies.

I am aware of that by just pointing to issues does not contributes enough to find solutions. My position at this point is that the reduction of emissions to mitigate GHGs should come by applying a mind set focused on energy efficient sourcing, manipulation and recovery in all sectors.

The concept of “Waste”, should be penalised in all sectors. That would allow a transition between systems of production and consumption, maximising the value of the already set infrastructures, limiting the impact from developing technologies and enforcing sustainability in the use of the remaining resources in the planet meanwhile adapting to a more efficient “symbiotic relation” between human activities and the environment.

September 14, 2016 Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19874.63684

…excerpt from this publication:

Discussion

Based on what it has been discussed in previous assessments over recent atmospheric developments the mixing ratio is increasing and, even though I believe that it is not going to follow the same pattern through time, at the moment, it seems foreseeable.

In a previous publications in this blog I pointed out already that it is time to be vigilant about seeing similarities on what is happening in recent years. Not based on waiting for big magnitudes to be measured behind things happening but also based on which magnitudes have to be in place in order for things to not happen as well as the mere existence of “mild” features and patterns repeating in time and location.

All the small things

All the small things which are happening under the radar of major scientific attention is playing a role in a game which involves the atmospheric circulation at global scale. Not only this pattern “carries” warm air towards high latitudes, but also into higher altitudes. As a result we see how warm masses of air are “pushing” masses of cold air out of its way, coming into lower latitudes and altitudes

Global Hemispheric Inter-Arctic Connectivity

All the patterns observed and discussed through the publications shared over the period of three years point to a interconnection between Atlantic and Pacific basins through the Arctic thanks to the wobbly Polar Jet Stream. Such mechanism generates synchronism between weather events seeing over both basins. Such eventuality was already discussed over previous publications and shows to keep happening through 2016.

Conclusions

As I said in the last publication:

“My assessments point to conclude that the mixing ratio between masses of air being warmed up at equatorial and mid-latitudes has increased altering the stratification of the atmosphere in its 3 dimensions.

As a result, some atmospheric events become more erratic in their behaviour and seasons are dominated by localised masses of air instead of the Solar angle of radiation linked with the position and tilt of the Earth.”

That is why locations in Northern latitudes might see warmer conditions than those in the south. Or even high contrasts between locations in the same latitude as we saw between west and east North America.

Such conclusive assessment, based on observations and analyses, serves as a progression pre-verifying the mechanisms purposed in the theory published in this blog in 2014 and following publications

November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Researchgate:  DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24688.35848

Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From LinkedIn discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have received the following comment:

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

And I have replied as follows:

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

I received the following comment over my answer:

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

And I have replied the following:

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

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

December 17, 2016 Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality. A Change Triggered from Changing the Order of The Factors (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20129.81760

Being CO2 a molecular element enhancing atmospheric thermal conductance, and aerosols acting as droplet nuclei in cloud formation, their combined effect altogether with alterations in the water cycles and energy flows due to anthropogenic activity would increase the capacity for the atmosphere to absorb, contain and disperse water vapour. But more importantly, this water vapour would incorporate an increase of energy into the atmospheric pool which it would affect atmospheric developments such as the strength, paths  and life periods of lows and highs as much as those events concentrating energetic discharges in form of precipitation, wind and heat or cold waves.

The outcome from such assessment foresees an spreading of energy through the atmosphere in Latitude and Altitude, driving a climatic drift which will affect life cycles in animals and plants as well as in soil degradation and water availability.

The assessments presented through the series of publications shared in the line of research published in this blog apply a point of view which considers an order of factors driven by thermodynamical principles. As the process followed in the order of the steps taken to cook the recipe to make an environment.

All these assessments foresee a change in the progression of Seasonality from Orbital Driven to Kinetic driven, considering kinetic an expression of the energy being driving the seasonal climatic regimes around the latitudes and longitudes.

See also:

March 3, 2016 Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

 

_____________________________________

Observations, Interpretations and Conclusions

____________________________________________

Even though many scientists might look into the same events and parameters, not all of us are making the same assessments over the meaning behind those, and the conclusions which can be reached from our observation and analysis.

In particular there have been four assessments showing major discrepancies between the line of research presented here and main stream scientific coverage. The assessments are about the concept of climate drift, the link between the Polar Vortex and tropospheric circulation, the role played by the ENSO and the dynamics explaining abnormal Arctic Warming and sea ice cover.

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)
September 2, 2016 Climate Drift, The True Meaning of Things and the Drift of Those. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
December 11, 2015 Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3238.2801
March 22, 2016 Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)  Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1968.5521

In the recent November 2016 it has been an event at the Arctic which has called the attention of researchers and the media. This time it has been an episode of warmer than normal conditions over the Arctic through the period in which ice should be forming and temperatures should be dropping.

Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality.

The subject of Arctic warming has been very widely presented in the media, and yet, little discussion is added to address this event. Everybody seems to follow the same “mantra”, without giving much thought about it. Since the “leaders” represent the knowledge, they mark the path, others put on them the responsibility to think for us and many blindly follow.

One example which represents many sources is the publication: “Something strange is happening with the Arctic sea ice. Here’s what’s going on, and why it matters“. Written by Alex Gray (Senior Writer, Formative Content). Published Friday 25 November 2016. www.weforum.org

“This year the Arctic sea ice has retreated earlier than normal, meaning that the sea had longer to absorb the heat from the sun. As a result, at the start of the season when sea ice should be forming, the water was still too warm.

Air temperature also played a part. October’s air temperatures were unusually high over most of the Arctic Ocean for that time of year.”

arctic-temperature-nov-2016-at-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd

This phrase immersed in the article is an example of how looking at the same pieces of the puzzle, each one of us can find different pictures. In particular, in this case, the previous paragraph leaves more questions open than those that it resolves.

  • This year the Arctic sea ice has retreated earlier than normal…

That is a phrase which takes for granted that being “earlier than normal” can be dismissed by offering a mere description of the situation. And yet, what has caused the ice to retreat earlier than normal?

  • … meaning that the sea had longer to absorb the heat from the sun.

The meaning of “seeing the ice to retreat earlier than normal” is not addressed here in any way. The suggestive interpretation of this situation is offered as if “the sea had longer to absorb the heat from the sun”. And yet, the angle of incidence for the radiation of the Sun received at Arctic latitudes has been declining since the Autumn equinox September 21-22.

  • As a result, at the start of the season, when sea ice should be forming, the water was still too warm. (to form ice)

And the cause was the absence of ice through the summer? Which actually, the reduction of ice in the summer is normal, the inhibition of formation is not normal and can not be justified by the absence of ice.

  • Air temperature also played a part. October’s air temperatures were unusually high over most of the Arctic Ocean for that time of year.

How is that, in the paragraph, “sea ice has retreated earlier than normal” has a meaning however, “October’s air temperatures were unusually high” does not have any meaning?

The order of the factors

So, the order of the factors offered to explain the lack of ice in the Arctic is the following:

  • The ice retreated in Summer, which is normal.
  • It hasn´t recovered at the usual rate after summer.
  • The cause for the lack of ice is the absence of ice in itself because then the Ocean can absorb more heat from radiation.
  • Yet, radiation at the Arctic is decreasing towards zero due to the change in orbital tilt.

Now then, lets add some critical thinking. Temperature in the air are measured higher than normal, so :

  • If the source of heat for this air would be the water from the oceans, the oceans would be cooling down. And with the absence of radiation from the Sun, ice would be highly probable.
  • The heat transferred from the Oceans water into the air require an atmospheric molecule able to absorb the heat from the oceanic waters. The major molecular gas absorbing heat in the atmosphere is water vapour. Other GHG’s are in minor concentration, like CO2, but with higher capacity to absorb heat and with a longer time permanency period in the air since it does not condense (and precipitate) in liquid form at low temperatures. In order to measure atmospheric high temperatures at such latitudes, either there is water vapour or other GHGs holding it.
  • Since the Arctic circulation keeps the air is dry (no water vapour) due to its low temperatures, in order to measure high temp, in the absence of solar radiation and oceanic water releasing heat to the air from becoming ice, we can give strong considerations to assume that those high temperatures, at such high latitudes (Arctic), during the start of the coldest season of the year, for this region, comes from intrusions of warm masses of air from mid latitudes.

Changing the order of the factors

Using the same words as those applied in the paragraph published but adding a different order we could end up with what it would be my assessment based on my research:

“This year the Arctic sea ice has retreated earlier than normal.  October’s air temperatures were unusually high over most of the Arctic Ocean for that time of year. Meaning that the sea had longer to absorb the heat from the sun. As a result, at the start of the season when sea ice should be forming, the water was still too warm.”

Needless to say that “Air temperature “also” played a part.”

Arctic Amplification focus the attention over the measurements showing the Arctic is warming faster than other latitudes in the planet. And then, scientists are looking for mechanisms driving this dynamic.

I will offer my assessment based on my research.

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.

June 9, 2017 “Mixing Dynamics” in the Atmosphere. A follow-up on previous research by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23548.03209
March 23, 2017 Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.
June 23, 2017 “Seasonal Outlook. June 2017 (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25428.91528

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.

(comment update)

A new publication seems to show certain agreement with the content of my previous assessments:

2017-08-27 22:30
http://www.news24.com
“Cyclones and climate change: connecting the dots”
Paris – Scientists freely acknowledge they don’t know everything about how global warming affects hurricanes like the one pummelling southeast Texas.
But what they do know is enough to keep them up at night…
– accelerated shifts in intensity, such as the sudden strengthening that turned Harvey from a Category 2 to a Category 4 hurricane – on a scale of 5 – just as it made landfall Friday.
– James Kossin, a scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Weather and Climate in Madison, Wisconsin, figured out that cyclones have drifted poleward in their respective hemispheres over the last three decades, a finding hailed by other hurricane gurus as the most unambiguous evidence so far that global warming has already had a direct impact.
– The US National Hurricane Center predicts that Harvey could dump more than 40 inches (100 centimetres) by the time skies clear. “The irony is that hurricanes are known for wind, yet wind is third on the list of lethal aspects,” after storm surges and flooding caused by rain, noted Kerry Emmanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT in Boston.
– A finding often cited as evidence that the jury is still out on whether climate change will boost cyclones is that scientists don’t know if there will be more or fewer such storms in the future.
But even if there are fewer, which seems likely, that misses the point, the experts interviewed agreed.
“The idea of ‘fewer but stronger’ seems to be the fingerprint of climate change on tropical cyclones,” James Elsner concluded, an atmospheric scientists and hurricane expert at Florida State University.

http://www.news24.com/Green/News/cyclones-and-climate-change-connecting-the-dots-20170827

July 21, 2017 “Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s Approach on Atmospheric Dynamics and Climate Drift. July 2017 Follow-Up. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15362.58565

_________________________________

A Scenario created from a point of view

__________________________________

Free Energy is a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a system to do work.

Even though Wikipedia is not recognised as a “trusted source of information by some, I will apply what I recognise as usefull in this particular case to make my point.

“In thermodynamics the entropy of mixing is the increase in the total entropy when several initially separate systems of different composition, each in a thermodynamic state of internal equilibrium, are mixed without chemical reaction by the thermodynamic operation of removal of impermeable partition(s) between them, followed by a time for establishment of a new thermodynamic state of internal equilibrium in the new unpartitioned closed system.

In general, the mixing may be constrained to occur under various prescribed conditions. In the customarily prescribed conditions, the materials are each initially at a common temperature and pressure, and the new system may change its volume, while being maintained at that same constant temperature, pressure, and chemical component masses. The volume available for each material to explore is increased, from that of its initially separate compartment, to the total common final volume. The final volume need not be the sum of the initially separate volumes, so that work can be done on or by the new closed system during the process of mixing, as well as heat being transferred to or from the surroundings, because of the maintenance of constant pressure and temperature.

The internal energy of the new closed system is equal to the sum of the internal energies of the initially separate systems. The reference values for the internal energies should be specified in a way that is constrained to make this so, maintaining also that the internal energies are respectively proportional to the masses of the systems.[1]

For concision in this article, the term ‘ideal material’ is used to refer to an ideal gas (mixture) or an ideal solution.

In a process of mixing of ideal materials, the final common volume is the sum of the initial separate compartment volumes. There is no heat transfer and no work is done. The entropy of mixing is entirely accounted for by the diffusive expansion of each material into a final volume not initially accessible to it.

On the mixing of non-ideal materials, the total final common volume may be different from the sum of the separate initial volumes, and there may occur transfer of work or heat, to or from the surroundings; also there may be a departure of the entropy of mixing from that of the corresponding ideal case. That departure is the main reason for interest in entropy of mixing. These energy and entropy variables and their temperature dependences provide valuable information about the properties of the materials.

On a molecular level, the entropy of mixing is of interest because it is a macroscopic variable that provides information about constitutive molecular properties. In ideal materials, intermolecular forces are the same between every pair of molecular kinds, so that a molecule feels no difference between other molecules of its own kind and of those of the other kind. In non-ideal materials, there may be differences of intermolecular forces or specific molecular effects between different species, even though they are chemically non-reacting. The entropy of mixing provides information about constitutive differences of intermolecular forces or specific molecular effects in the materials.

The statistical concept of randomness is used for statistical mechanical explanation of the entropy of mixing. Mixing of ideal materials is regarded as random at a molecular level, and, correspondingly, mixing of non-ideal materials may be non-random.”

______________________

Climate, character driven VS plot driven. What`s the difference?

__________________________________

Character driven is when the decisions the characters make drives the plot, and plot driven is when the things that happen to the characters drives the plot.

Lord of the Rings is plot driven, the entire story is getting the ring into the volcano to stop the evil. Star Wars is plot driven, there’s a Death Star, get the plans to the rebels, blow up the Death Star. Plot driven.

Plot driven tends to have arch characters, instantly recognizable as “the badass”, “the villain”, “the hero”, etc. The thrust of the story is achieving some clear goal.

Titanic is character driven, it’s a melodramatic tale of a rich young woman in a loveless marriage falling in love with a lower class scoundrel. There’s a boat sinking in there but it’s mostly about Jack and Rose. High Fidelity is about a guy getting over a bad break up and going through self examination and ideas of growth or refusing to grow and the interactions between the main characters.

Character driven is focused on characters and their motivations and nuances. There is no grand quest or mission, it’s more “a bunch of stuff happens to interesting people”. (link to source)

In climate we have created too many Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, with a positive and a negative side attached to a determined behaviour for our characters; the ENSO, the NAO, AO, …, temperature, GHGs, Solar Behaviour, Anthropogenic activity, … We have even given superpowers to many of those characters many of which are part of human creation in order to “standardise” their existence (cause (something) to conform to a standard), building relations and behaviours as in a Marvel Superheroes character driven performance.

But, is our climate a character driven or a plot driven story?

Is everything about how our “characters” behave when the ship sinking or about what the characters do to decide if the ship sinks or not?

Is the ship sinking driving our characters or the behaviour of our characters driving the destiny of the ship?

This is a question which goes beyond science, scientific thought or only scientists to decide. Science and scientists are not only studying the behaviour of our environment and its storyline, they are also creating the characters and even writing the plot within their papers. So we no longer discern between raw reality and the fiction inherent to the imagination of the people involved in describing the story and their characters.

We all know that what we call today deserts were in the past forests or jungles. Many of the “characters” in our landscape have changed, like in a game of thrones. And yet, we treat the oceans and the atmosphere as if all the characters we use to describe them today, have always been the same. We see studies tracking back in time the behaviour of indexes and their oscillations while at the same time making predictions into a fictional future. We are writing the plot of our past climates and its future like a novel. Science create the characters and add to them patterns of behaviour. Then afterwards it comes the plot and the interpretation of it, surrounded by all the discussion and the criticism, the likes and dislikes which comes with any storyline.

But, how much do we know about the reality behind those characters we take for granted and which are the mere interpretation of our humanized restrictions to measure and identify the components in the behaviour of our complex planetary system?

At the present time, many of the discussions we find use arguments which walk between two or three storylines; is our climate cooling, warming or even changing at all? Is the story of our climate driven by the behaviour of the characters of the plot or are those characters mere side stories immersed in a plot out of their control? But moreover, how reliable is our perception over the “characters” that we have created to describe our environment? Do you think that the ENSO, the NAO, … have existed before, throughout and after paleoclimatic times? Do you think that the effect of Solar activity over the planetary system has been always the same despite all the changes identified in composition and structure over the atmosphere, land cover and plant distribution as well as within the oceanic chemistry?

Are you thinking that there have not been thresholds dictating the disappearance,  relocation or change in the behaviour of characters involved in the storyline of our planetary climate? Do you really believe that the NAO, the ENSO, the ITCZ, … all have been characters being always there behaving by the rules that science has described for them, through glaciations and periods of biological extinctions and blooms?

________________________

The Plot

________________________________

There is a huge limitation in the use of data and analyses of singular variables and components of the environment if you can not integrate all of your understanding in a scenario.

Climatic indexes, heat waves, cold spells, SST, Polar vortex, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons, ITCZ, GHGs, Albedo, Anthropogenic transformation and use of resources (liquid, solid and gaseous), Energy flows and pulses,  …, all those “elements” are “characters” in a multidimensional “plot” beyond 2D mathematical expressions, performing and interacting in a scenario.

We can put together a bear, a penguin and a human in the same location. So what next? Would you expect the same behaviour and developments in our plot if we choose three different scenarios? The Arctic, where even the bear and the penguin become a character with optional choices and the human has plenty to loose. A zoo, where the human has the control and the other two just stand as mere figures to enjoy ourselves. Or, the middle of a desert, where all three characters have low expectations of survival.

Likewise the scenario we choose to understand the behaviour of those characters so called climatic indexes makes them to acquire new dimensionalities, roles and even levels of relevance in the plot we see them to perform.

_________________________

The scenario and the plot

__________________________

We humans have a strong tendency to make associations. We learn to make them since we are children and we project our associations into any concept which comes as abstract to our minds.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test is a projective psychological test consisting of 10 inkblots printed on cards (five in black and white, five in color). In the test, the participant is shown a series of ten ink blot cards and directed to respond to each with what the inkblot looks like. The Rorschach is, at its most basic level, a problem-solving task that provides a picture of the psychology of the person taking it, and some level of understanding the person’s past and future behavior. Imagination is involved most often in the embellishment of a response, but the basic process of the task has little to do with imagination or creativity. (I use this simile to express how often a trained brain will only see patterns defined by pre-standardised indexes)

Anything that we can not comprehend as new on its core, any new raw information is driven into a standardisation, a recreation of a character with an expected pattern of behaviour.

The pattern on the glass can be viewed two ways. Two lovers in an embrace and nine dolphins. Research has shown that young children do not recognise the couple as they have no prior mental image to compare it to. Instead, they see nine dolphins in various poses, swimming upwards and downwards.

That gives us comfort through some sense of control. Without that sense of control we have a tendency to express anxiety. So many often we prefer to create our own reality and fool ourselves in order to believe that we have some control over the outcomes around us.

Even if that takes us to accept the concepts of “surprise”, “unprecedented” or “erratic” as mere acts of avoiding deception or frustration acknowledging lack of understanding, replacing it with an artificial feeling of “management” over our own capacity to accept “surprise” as a valid alternative form of “control”.

That is something which has happened with the “characterization” offered over the “existence” of phenomena, indexes and oscillations everybody talks about, and yet, nobody knows how to explain how or why they work or even their origin.

Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Posted on January 20, 2017

The “characterization” of events such as a “Polar Vortex broken” or the “El Niño” phase have been brought into the plot, the plot that it has become the storyline of our climate, “characters” in a novel for which there is a strong tendency towards describing stories “character driven” where anything without enough contrast with its environment to call the attention of the observer becomes a mere “scenary prop” in a passive scenery.

Image from the precious publication Which of both pictures represents an El Niño event? OR Which one represents a warmer than usual SSTs state? Atmospheric Dynamics. Foreseeable, At The Moment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)2016/07/19 

In the current time, similar scenarios have unfolded with and without the North Polar Vortex broken, or the influence of the so called El Niño or La Niña phase. Those “characters” have demonstrated to behave more like props of scenarios in themselves than “characters” driving a plot. Those events have shown to be the consequence of other forces at place. Those events, also with the standardised NAO or the behaviour of the ITCZ, represent dynamics and processes nobody seems to willingly accept as the result of, but instead as the origin of everything. Characters driving a plot in a scenario nobody seems to relate to. As an example lets say that it is assumed that the equatorial east pacific SST is considered the driver of atmospheric developments and not the other way around. And yet, nobody tells about the nature of the origin of the ITCZ behaviour being based on solid ground soil over the African equatorial continent… Same latitude, two interpretations: Warm Sea surface temperatures generate pulses driving atmospheric circulation (ENSO), while the ITCZ over Africa generates pulses responsible of hurricanes moving across the Atlantic.

I believe that both scenarios are driven by the same dynamics and those are related with the interconnection between latitudes and Arctic circulation. The implications from such considerations have been discussed in previous publications such as

September 14, 2016 Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
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.)
June 18, 2015 Extreme climatic events, implications for projections of species distributions and ecosystem structure (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
December 23, 2015 New insides on old concepts (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4211.8001

 

The story being told is all about “characters” driving the plot. A strong El Niño, a weak Polar Vortex, the fight to conquer the planet between the “evil” heat and its sister cold, the almighty Sun and its secretive powers, … are those scenarios or characters? What is that we are studying in order to understand the storyline in our climatic and meteorological regimes? Are we looking at how our “characters” have behaved through time or at how much the scenario/s has/ve changed?

The answer to both questions move in very different directions. Characters can have cycles and oscillations, they can evolve and even disappear and new ones to appear. But scenarios are never equal, so the behaviour of those characters or even their existence rely entirely on the characteristics of the scenario which offers support for their existence. Two completely different approaches to understand the plot.

Since the beginning of my research over climatic developments I have looked at these questions trying to fill in or find out gaps of knowledge trying to behave as an outsider free from preconceptions.

How much of what we know is a projection of our limitations in understanding? How raw is our understanding of things and how much of it it has been deteriorated with static conceptualizations passed through generations of academic learning taming our capacity to identify the difference between new and old, real or conceptualised?, how much comes from assumptions based on limited methodologies or just lack of dynamic perspective carrying gaps of knowledge through time?

Which way is the correct to interpret the representation of SST in our rounded planet hovering in space?

Our planet is a scenario placed inside a bigger scenario, without ups and downs.

We are surrounded by galaxies with planets, suns, asteroids, nebulae and black holes, cosmic rays, radiation of different wave lengths, … we have identified many ways that those characters can have an influence in our scenario and yet, there is one singular character which we have been able to identify just in one single location, the existence of life. Life is a character on its own with a particular behaviour which we haven´t been able to identify anywhere else.

Life, as a character, defined the course for our existence and the existence of the scenario where we perform our act in the current times. Life marked the transition from a thermodynamic environment unable of fixing the free energy entering from our Sun into an inert/fixed form towards creating an environment capable of generating mechanisms of resilience to absorb variations from the energy pulses generated from external perturbations by storing free energy in an inert/innactive form.

Life is the only mechanism which only goal is to preserve stability through homoeostasis at macro and micro scale. Life is a character which has created its own scenario.

We as specie, we live and survive by our capacity to create scenarios in our mind which we can use to predict outcomes and prepare to confront them and adapt to those. That comes with what we call intelligence. The problem comes when we can not longer separate in our scenarios reality from our own creations. Creations made to fill out the gaps of understanding in the absence of better forms of control. Like generating models with variables which try to replicate the effect of considering the absence of data.

_______________________

Time. A scenario or A character? Or both …

_________________________

As children we all grow up relying on understanding the scenarios in which we live. And afterwards we become aware of the implications that our actions and behaviour have over the development of such scenario. We also begin to understand how time plays its role in the transition between scenarios and the evolution over the characters interacting in the plot we form part of.

We learn to do not take for granted that our past experiences can be used to project future scenarios and we understand and adapt to coping with the existence of new characters arriving and leaving our scenario. We do not expect to live through the same experiences through time because we change simultaneously with our environment and the rest of the characters around us.

We understand that but, in science, the scientific model of thought says that in order to consider the validity of an scenario, such scenario has to be replicable by any one with the methodology described. So we learn that scientific knowledge has to be based on replication and repetition. A pattern of thought that connects facts with scenarios, but not with behaviours.

Under the similar scenarios we should expect the same outcomes and behaviours. But is our planetary system living the same scenario (Land cover, Composition on its three phases gaseous, liquid and solid, geological and biological activity, chemical and physical processes, emissions, consumption of resources, …) with the same characters behaving in the same way, or even with the same characters at all, as in any other scenario in its previous history?

______________________________

Discussing Current Scenarios and Characters

________________________________

Global Cooling VS Global Warming

There is a point of view missing completely in the debate of climatic developments and atmospheric dynamics.

Everybody seems to be focused on preparedness to face a planetary global warming or cooling phase. It is like if those are the only options. And what it surprises me the most is that either phase is expected to be unidirectional, homogeneous and stratified latitudinally.

Based on past glaciations, cold phases extended the surface covered by ice moving from the Poles towards the equator. But no record shows an extension of reach for cool temperatures while the pole in itself gets warmer.

It seems to me that nobody is considering that there is a new scenario in our planet, a scenario where our planet has never been so bright on its shadow face.

A new scenario where there is a third option from global cooling or global warming, and implies the loss of stratification in the atmosphere. I have wrote about it in my blog and discussed it at linkedin:

At WordPress: Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing”  (14 sept 2016)

At Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6181896724236292096

About “Characters”

I have discussed through my publications that the segmentations between disciplines and standardization over conceptualization, increment the impact from gaps of knowledge contained in each one of the disciplines and static standards and indexes defined.

I have tried to highlight how such impact can be reduced by adopting a more interdisciplinary approach following conceptual assessments instead of relying on standardised patterns based on stats biased on methodological restrictions.

Our biggest problem is not just to become aware of what is relevant that we do not know but equally important is to understand the use and meaning of what we do know.

I have discussed for 4 years an scenario where energetic events in the atmosphere will change in their expression.

In the publication Seasonal Outlook June 2017, I wrote:

“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.”

I don´t know when, where or how these things will happen. I just know that there is an scenario where these developments are not a surprise and I have my own opinion about why.

The continuity in the record of high temperatures in the absence of a strong El Niño phase might suggest the validity of my arguments linking atmospheric Arctic circulation with Equatorial developments as part of a chain reaction through the Atlantic and Pacific Basins resultant of processes in a mixing dynamic. I can only humbly offer my thoughts even knowing that I am in a weak position when compared with renowned scientists with plenty of peer reviewed publications and official support. But I believe that the scenario which my analyses describe is valid and with plenty of potential to explain present and future developments.

________________________________

My scenario vs Your scenario. My interpretation, your interpretation.

___________________________

This is what I see:

ENSO and Indian Ocean outlooks

International climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that ENSO-neutral conditions are likely to persist at least until late 2017. The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is neutral. The weekly index value to 27 August was +0.34 °C.

State of the atmospheric dynamics

Some current patterns are similar to those discussed in previous publications, e.g.:

January 15, 2015 Probability in the atmospheric circulation dictating the Weather (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25694.33608
September 8, 2015 A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1697.5847
October 7, 2015 Arctic Intake of Water Vapour (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
December 23, 2015 New insides on old concepts (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4211.8001

https://diegofdezsevilla.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/one-year-atlantic-pacific-interconnection-in-atmospheric-circulation-by-diego-fdez-sevilla-m.png?w=547&h=774

State of atmospheric circulation on August 30th, 2017

Some current patterns are similar to those discussed in previous publications, e.g.:

November 10, 2016 Cyclonic Alignment Towards the Arctic (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

State of atmospheric circulation on August 30th, 2017

Some current patterns are similar to those discussed in previous publications, e.g.:

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. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

State of atmospheric circulation on August 31st, 2017: Temperature anomaly 31 August 2017

______________________________________

I would like to offer as a contribution to any global assessment the line of research and discussion that I have performed in the last three years publishing it for open review at my blog, at LinkedIn and Researchgate.

Despite the lack of references from official channels and institutions offering support or acknowledgement over my work, I believe that the lack of any negative comment or criticism over all my assessments, and the support offered by members at linkedIn with technical profiles, it might shine a light over the potential value behind some thoughts and analyses highlighted through my publications.

In December 2016 The Arctic made the news due to its high temperatures. I wrote a global assessment linking Arctic developments with atmospheric dynamics and weather events at global scale and as part of a pattern followed through time and seasons.

I believe that the behaviour of Harvey as a hurricane driven by “anomalous” pulses of energy, plenty of precipitation and the role plaid by wind shear, the developments at the ITCZ, the neutral status of the ENSO, the erratic spring/summer period at the Iberian peninsula, the monsoon in Asia and the direction of the cyclones moving polewards, are all related. I leave it for you to judge.

I hope you find it useful.

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 consequently, its weekly basis time frame discontinued until new forms of economic and institutional support are incorporated into the project. If you are interested in the continuity of this project, please share your interest publicly so investors and institutions might recognise its value and offer the support required to make this research an activity sustainable in a full time schedule. d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

Some people might think that being independent is related with being free from economical agendas. Since we all rely on economic support to sustain our activities, every activity require economic support. Being “independent” is a mindset which only should reflect an attitude based on a self-evolved criteria built upon a critical mind. It should not be identified with isolation but instead with the reputation of the source offering an opinion. I am sorry I can not be involved in discussions and assessments in a full time-frame since I do not have the required economic support. I only hope that with my previous activity I have been able to build a reputation over my capacity to analyse situations, make assessments, build communication channels and interact with others. And I hope that it will help me to find a team interested in sharing such attitude helping to support the reputation of institution/s involved.

__________________________

Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD’s line of research. The Drama and the story line.

____________________________

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 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

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)

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 there 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

ENSO

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 you to consider reading through those publications and assessments which I have published in relation with Solar forcing through the line of research presented by 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.

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)  Posted on

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.

From the publication on February 9, 2017:

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.  23 March 2017

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.”

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 Overall 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. If you are interested in becoming involved in this line of research by offering support to maintain this project, please contact me at my email d.fdezsevilla@gmail.com

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.

xxxx

Good By and Good Luck

We all have something to say. We all have a story to tell. We all have lived through experiences even when we have pushed hard to avoid some. All those decisions are justified by reasons built upon our own perception of things and our ability to assess the situation.

But one thing is to survive and another very different is to find the way of telling others the story making something productive out of it.

If you think that reaching the stars is difficult because they are distant in space, at least you can be at peace with yourself since you know the reason for your limitations. When you can not reach in productive engagement with the closest part of your universe, your fellow cohabitants (either as in a couple, members of your family, your professional fellows or society in general), nothing will comfort you but knowing that you have done your best. Well, may be.

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. 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, Biological productivity, Energy Balance, Environmental Resilience, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Finding out, Influence of Continentality, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Solar activity, Water vapour and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Climate. A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. The “Drama”, Character Driven VS Plot Driven (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

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

  2. Pingback: Convecting Forcing Dominating Atmospheric Circulation NH (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  3. Pingback: Something for the curious minds. Climate and Streamlines (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

  5. Pingback: Energetic Pulses in Atmospheric Circulation Unsettle Our Climatic Scenarios (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  6. Pingback: Atmospheric Dynamics And Shapes (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

  8. 25Feb2019 Follow-up, Recap and reshare at LinkedIn
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6506117699381325824

    Diego Fernandez Sevilla, Ph.D.
    Diego Fernandez Sevilla, Ph.D.
    Analista Medioambiental. En Transición. Margen Internacional (diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com)
    1d • Edited
    It is time to talk about the Oscars among those following climatic debates. Among the nominees there are works looking into future scenarios using models (science fiction category) and those looking into finding confirmation over the patterns proposed by the events unfolding in real time. We have works in the publishing industry and in digital platforms, big budget works and independent low budget pieces. The audience makes the choice. The options are about, nothing is happening, global cooling, global warming and global mixing. Since all works have coverage by mainstream but one, global mixing, I want to offer
    my piece from low budget, independent research making. Here the argument looks into cold and warm events found simultaneously and independently from the orbital seasons or climatic indexes using real time developments. Adding some touch of personal insights over the variety of challenges faced in the process. If you are aware of the current situation over Europe, the energetic Mediterranean area, the deep low over the Atlantic, typhoon in the west pacific, rains in Souht America, heat in Australia, Cold NA, warm Arctic, cruching Antarctica, snow in deserts, .. might find it of your interest.
    (also see “A new Pattern in Atmospheric Circulation Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD” at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com and researchgate)

    Like

  9. Pingback: A pattern of change in the atmosphere beyond considering global warming or cooling. That is, global mixing. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  10. Pingback: Misleading Concepts in Arctic Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  11. Pingback: In Science Worst Than Using Beliefs to Make Decisions For You, Is Doing It and Not to Be Aware of It. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  12. 2019 March. Publication Related with the present one:
    In Science Worst Than Using Beliefs to Make Decisions For You, Is Doing It and Not to Be Aware of It. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
    diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
    https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/in-science-worst-than-using-beliefs-to-make-decisions-for-you-is-doing-it-and-not-to-be-aware-of-it-by-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd/

    Like

  13. Pingback: Research on real-time Climatic developments. 2018 Review over the line of research presented by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  14. Pingback: 16 May 2019 Follow-Up on Atmospheric Dynamics over Europe and Climatic Implications (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  15. Pingback: Climate and Weather. Lost in translation? (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

  16. Pingback: Climate. A Matter of Perspective (Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) | Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Leave a Reply to Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. Cancel 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.