Thank you for your email to Professor … (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
Since I am sure that you have plenty of emails to go through I will try to use some relaxed formalities to make it simple, within a point.
My name is Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Though I am Spanish I use English since I worked in my Phd as Atmospheric Biologist at Worcester Univ. back in 2007. So I believe that I can make a point in English but I can not use the excuse of using speaking programs to justify my grammar errors. All those will be my fault.
After I finished my PhD in 2007 my career has taken several turns in a random path moving in and out of academia. However, through the years I have kept in mind the same methodological approach about any form of information which has come to my senses.
In 2013 I was asked about my position on climatic developments. When I mentioned the information as part of main stream channels I was challenged about the political agendas behind. So I began to take a closer look into the state of knowledge and the use of the information available from my methodological and scientific point of view.
I realised that much of the information which was addressing such debate was scattered and even following what I understood as incoherent paths.
The result from such conclusion made me begin to develop my own assessments over the state of the climatic dynamics using my own methodology in order to keep control over the sources of error contained within the studies published by third parties. Accordingly I started observing atmospheric dynamics and biotic behaviour through satellite imaging and data reports from all types of sources available through the internet.
Soon after I began to develop my own pattern of thought I realised that between all the scientific disciplines, theories and publications in peer review journals there was one common conclusion. Despite the novelty offered from designing new models, new sets of data obtained with new gadgets and satellites, new forms to manipulate data sets, new statistical analyses, despite all the novelty required to justify a scientific publication, nobody, or everybody reached the same limiting point; that was that nobody was being able to match the behaviour of data, the results of models, the dispersion of agreement within and between data sets over time, and ultimately, the consistency of results obtained with the reality unfolding through our tangible time. Everybody has data but none the description of the mechanism which is generating the data. Everybody has an algorithm to feed but none knows what generates the data applied to feed those or what to make out of the data produced by those.
I thought that such limitation was intriguing and I gave it a thought to the point of reaching in 2014 a conclusion which could describe a mechanism finding explanation to all those limitations.
I decided to share it publicly in order to find some feedback which would help me to assess its validity. But, since I was in a period of transition outside academia and I even lacked peer reviewed publications which I could apply to support my ideas, I could not just publish in scientific journals. Therefore, I decided that I could not leave the chance of exploring the value of my assessments just waiting to find an “official” position in a world getting short of such options by the minute. And by looking at the options left available by the academic system for those scientist with an idea but without a job, I created a blog, shared my thoughts into platforms and AGU, NOAA groups at LinkedIn and even sent several emails to people with technical profiles, from meteorologists to astrophysicists, biologists, physicists, …
Despite my attempts to receive an answer, any answer, I only had one person being kind enough to read my assessments and share an answer (not even at AGU or NOAA groups I had a negative or positive comment, neither at my blog). The person I managed to reach was the Professor Jennifer Francis, a lead scientist supporting the theory of Arctic amplification, with which I have a different view.
In my email I explain to her my position over climatic developments and mechanisms:
“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.”
On 17th of December 2014, Jennifer Francis sent her answer to me (full email exchange 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.”
Since 2014 I have shared assessments over atmospheric dynamics and climatic implications at weekly bases. Through the year 2016 and 2017 it has become frequent to find that previous assessments and dynamics are repeating through time.
June 23, 2017 “Seasonal Outlook. June 2017 (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25428.91528
August 8, 2017 8th August 2017. Weather analyses and Climatic implications. Follow-up on previous assessments and real time developments over the NH, South and Central Europe By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
So, I am writing to the person at the other side of the screen looking for the possibility of making contact with intelligent forms of life which can take me out of my misery and give me an opinion about my own interpretation of the mechanisms driving either, my illusion of what this world is, or the world in which we all are immersed:
Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. The state of the global dynamics show warm dynamics moving towards the poles expressed by biological blooms as well as by temp anomalies. Meanwhile, Arctic masses of air are displaced towards lower latitudes (North American Continent and at the Canary Islands are getting snow the first and hail the second). This situation of instability could be linked to the transition between seasons. However, such transition has not been defined by the Sun’s angle of incidence linked with seasonality. Such situation points to an increase in the mixing ratio between midlatitudinal masses of air and Arctic circulation driven by kinetic energy transferred through the atmosphere.Such atmospheric accumulation of energy is delivering also prominent events of pouring rain in locations such as South America and even the Mediterranean coast of the Iberian peninsula with rain rates localised in time and space way above most previous seasonal conditions in the last years.
The orbital positioning of the Earth is neither at the strongest cold phase in the NH or the warmest at the SH, and yet, in both hemispheres there are biotic indicators reacting to conditions associated with warmer than current astronomically seasonal position or even Solar’s cycle activity.
Restating obvious facts is something I believe it is missing in the actual state of knowledge. Many situations, concepts and indexes are what it was left to make a compromise between what was possible to be considered useful at the time. Nobody explained the mechanisms behind those indexes, only the explanation of their existence based on the probability of seeing those patterns to repeat in time. Such probability and uncertainty became “lost” in translation through publications and their basic facts became also accommodated positions from where to stand discussing the future, almost never looking back at the fundamentals sustaining them. Like the ENSO used as a justification without knowing what the ENSO is or the NAO as if both would be static features through time. Those indexes were created based on probability from a static point of view and static references. But, if the atmosphere change its composition and thermodynamics behaviour, how much probability could we expect in seeing those features not changing?? Like the currents in a river, those are temporary features resultant from temporary states in topographic shape and flow levels, same with energy in the atmosphere.
It has been considered as an obvious fact that:
“The Natural System responds to variations and changes in the Climate System.”
Based on my research, I believe that there is a new “factorial” order in our environmental system which comes described by the same components but moving in opposite directions. At the end of the day, or at the beginning of our days, it was biotic processes which made possible the climate we have, and not the other way around.
“The Climate System responds to variations and changes in the Natural System.”
The main conclusion reached from the research carried through this project is defined by the relation described by Einstein between the “free” state of Energy and its “fixed” state as mass.
An ecosystem is an open system because it can exchange energy or materials with other ecosystems. Earth is a closed system with respect to nutrients and chemicals, but open with respect to energy.
The thermodynamic properties of the Earth system define what we call the climatic regimes in our Planet. Those thermodynamic interactions are driven under the fundamental principle:
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another”
This principle links the activity of the human development with the thermodynamic behaviour of our climates.
This publication is the closing stage of the project:
Based on the research published my global assessment on anthropogenic forcing as a cause of climatic drift is the following:
Two processes are being affecting our thermodynamic system At the same time:
- The action of the human specie has reduced the capacity of the Biota in our ecosystems to fix energy entering our planet through photosynthesis by reducing the capacity of the ecosystems to regenerate,
- AND also, The action of the human specie is releasing energy into the thermodynamic system from its fixed form due to the lack of efficiency in transportation and transformation from one state to another, either from dams using gravimetric energy, through burning organic material (fossil and new), managing soils, waste production (energy, solid, liquid and gaseous), managing of raw materials, …
Are Models capable of simulate natural variability?
The problem with models lays on defining the initial state from where to run it and, the synergies which will exist or vanish through time, as well as, to define the level of dominance between those synergies. So, to only start with one single limitation I would say, how much is integrated in models the increase of human forcing over other variables as the time moves forward? How much is taken in consideration the deterioration in the capacity of our environment to absorb the impacts from variations of natural variability (environmental resilience)? An atmospheric physicist will look at the interaction of physical variables to develop mathematical equations and relations build on stats. As a biologist, mathematics and stats are tools which bring light into the existence of questions described in terms of probability or uncertainty. We can evaluate the relative frequency in the origin of mutations due to UV exposure, but we can not predict the type of mutation which we will see, how those will develop and which will become dominant. Same in environmental modelling. A change in the energetic flows in a new scenario might change the dominance roles.
If you have reached that far to read this, Thank you for your time.
Wish you a Merry Christmas and plenty of success in 2018.
LinkedIn English profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/diegofernandezsevilla/en
Marie Curie Alumni Association’s Blog: https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/blogs/diego-fernandez-sevilla