Feb 2018. Climate Drifts and The Scientific Method of Waiting 30 Years. Follow up on previous assessments by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
(Disscussion Updated 7th Feb 2018 with extracts added from previous assessments. I have done it because I presume that some of you do not want to read links if you do not know what they lead to)
(NH dynamics review) I could write something about the implications of current developments over the global assessment behind the dynamics we see unfolding these days (February 2018) over the NH and yet, I would look at the transition from summer 2017 and the present, and I would offer the same conclusions as the ones I have published since the beginning of the present line of research back in 2014. Nothing has changed in the dynamics that we see in the current situation. If anything can be taken from current developments is that those dynamics over the mixing fluctuations driven by kinetic forcing are becoming more evident over time. By following the line of research presented in this blog (and ResearchGate), this situation is highlighted at the publications seen for January and February in the timeline and the dynamics described in the publications addressing Arctic dynamics, Equatorial dynamics, SST anomalies (ENSO), Mixing Dynamics (specially the publication: “A climate between waters“), Kinetic Seasonality, …
Current state of atmospheric dynamics 4-5th February 2018
AirMass 29 Jan 2018 5 Feb 2018 7th Feb 2018
(update 7th Feb 2018…
Discussing current dynamics
Based on previous assessments we are already immersed in a new pattern of circulation where the Polar Jet Stream has lost its function giving as a result two stronger feedbacks: in latitude, mid latitudinal circulation will increase its convective forcing towards the poles and Arctic circulation will become more relevant in equatorial circulation (see band of clouds alignment over the Atlantic 4th Feb 2018, and from Caribbean to Red sea 6th Feb 2018).
Despite the useful input that the theory of Arctic Amplification brings into increasing research over Arctic feedbacks, my analyses discard the argument of facing a warming in the Arctic due to lack of ice decreasing albedo as the mechanism responsible for such anomalous warming at this part of the year (full disscussion here). My research considers the lack of solar radiation as a limiting factor for this mechanism pointing to atmospheric circulation as the major process defining the scenario generated. (related analyses here and here)
The implications of this new approach suggest new links throughout the 3 dimensions of the atmosphere indicating as a potential result from seeing the Arctic “absorving midlatitudinal forcing”, an “Equatorial amplification” in the feedback triggered at equatorial and mid latitudinal processes.
Some examples addressing atmospheric dynamics:
|May 26, 2016||Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34019.04645|
|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|
It has been suggested that “More particles in the atmosphere mean more reflective clouds and a cooler climate.”
That is a too simplistic way of looking at it. Different types of airborne particles generate also different types of interaction with the atm. water vapour and other gaseous elements and compounds. There is aerodynamic behaviour, chemical behaviour and thermodynamic behaviour. It has been addressed in sci publications that too many particles of too small size can inhibit rain by retaining water vapour in droplets too small to fall. Which in my research means that the thermal energy contained can be moved around in longer distances. Also, an increase in atm temp allows more water vapour to be contained in the atm so more clouds (and albedo) would be formed by more aerosols “only” if dew point is reached on those particles, which is more difficult to achieve as the temp increases. But, when you reach dew point over an increased conc of aerosols, within a thermically enhanced atmosphere charged of water vapour, all that energy will express itself in different types of forms, with heavy forms of precipitation (snow or pouring rain) and wind events. Like what we have just now over the Iberian peninsula and rain at the Arctic).
See related publications for more in depth analyses. … end of update 7 Feb 2018)
Relevant for this period from previous assessments over atmospheric dynamics
|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. Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1|
- Moisture gained in the Equator getting introduced in atmospheric circulation carrying water vapour into higher latitudes incorporating more energy in atmospheric circulation in the form of latent heat.
Notice that the most predominant entrance of water vapour into high latitudes happens in the North Atlantic.
More discussion also at Orbital Melting vs Kinetic Melting (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) 2016/12/30)
|November 17, 2016||Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24688.35848|
Previous Assessments for the period of February
|February 17, 2014||Met Office. The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK (Feb 2014) (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15169.25449|
|February 21, 2014||Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27974.98884|
|February 25, 2014||Resilience in our environment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)|
|January 13, 2016||Atmospheric Dynamics And Shapes (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35973.65765|
|January 15, 2016||European weather. Old News, Same News? by Diego Fdez-Sevilla|
|January 20, 2016||North American Weather. Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)|
|January 29, 2016||Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A follow-up assessment over the theory proposed on Energetic gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28948.19843|
|February 4, 2016||(updated 11-18 Feb2016) Polar Vortex, Old News, Same News? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25779.12328|
|February 12, 2016||Forecasting Past Events. Snow Coming to Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)|
|February 25, 2016||Forecasts For Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ReasearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36832.17925|
|March 3, 2016||Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2833.8968|
|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|
The assessments part of my line of research are not weather reports but interpretations over emerging dynamics explaining the lack of knowledge over mechanisms offered in the academia. Therefore, those assessments have to be tested through time.
It feels like the discussion over environmental issues is not a clash of understanding and knowledge but a clash of probabilities. So how probable is that an assessment made for a particular part of a year, could be applied in different years despite differences on ENSO signal, Polar Vortex configuration, …
Looking at the image describing atmospheric conditions and those assessments from previous years it seems that there is a pattern happening now and it is getting stronger by the year.
Discussion incorporating previous assessments
Choose yourself between the publications indicated.
Below I share some examples part of the disscussions included in assessments from previous years.
2016 Feb 12. Forecasting Past Events. Snow Coming to Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, … diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34807.11688
– “Since the volume of air to be contained in the Arctic is limited, when a cold mass of air comes out, another mass of air has to come inside to fill up the gap left. Therefore, it is also expected for mid latitudinal warm air to get into Arctic latitudes over the Atlantic.”
– “The intrusion of warm air from mid latitudes into the Arctic increases the probabilities of seeing precipitation in the form of rain instead of snow out of season. Something which would weaken even further the thermal contrast sustaining the Polar Jet stream.”
– “Throughout the winters of last years 2013/14 and 2014/15 there were already strong variation in temperature over the south of Europe and in particular over the Iberian Peninsula. Those happen with and without the Polar Vortex broken, and with and without the presence of a strong ENSO on its positive phase.”
(… follow link at the title to see it in full)
Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality. A Change Triggered from Changing the Order of The Factors (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) December 17, 2016 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.
|March 3, 2016||Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)|
And 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 three 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 Configuration and tropospheric circulation and the dynamics explaining abnormal Arctic Warming and sea ice cover.
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.
|September 14, 2016||Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)|
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)|
The assessments presented in the line of research published in this blog are shared in real time simultaneously with the events being unfolded. These assessments are built from direct observation and analysis based on numerical data and satellite imagery observation. The pace at which this line of research has evolved from 2013 has required to emphasize the coherence and consistency demanded in order to defend an approach offered with scientific value. The nature of its originality moving into uncharted waters has restricted the use of external references since, as cited by Jennifer Francis in 2014, “no previous studies could verify my assessments“.
Therefore, in such absence, the only review available is to test its coherence and consistency with a constant follow-up over the events being unfolded in real time.
But also, comparing those previous assessments with the new studies being offered by other fellow scientists.
Follow-up and Validation of Previous Assessments
Having and idea is simple. Making an idea simple is complicated. To make your idea a tangible product so others can find access to it, is the most demanding and challenging endeavour of all.
One main concept has been constant since the beginning of my assessments. Energy is getting spread in latitude, longitude and altitude due to the incorporation of GHGs which enhance atmospheric thermal resilience (absorbs and maintain temperature) inducing increases in Water vapour content which increases energy conductance (gravimetric, thermal and kinetic). The implications derived from such assessment have covered publications in this blog addressing all parts of the ecosystem and the weather events associated. From plant growth and displacements, soil degradation, weather patterns, ocean circulation and polar ice cover to energy demands.
Based on my research we are way beyond the first of many tipping points. We are actually going through stages like cyclists or like water going through the stages from solid ice to steam. And it is being a weathering process.
|“The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)||May 15, 2014|
|Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)||July 2, 2015|
First the conditions of thermal capacity for energy absorption increases. Energy storing begins at the part of the atmosphere receiving the highest volume of energy: Equatorial and mid-latitudes. Such process starts without an increase in temperature as the volume can transfer heat into variations in volume. Then the kinetic energy is not balanced by the work delivered so there is an increase in temperature. Such increase enhances the power of the atmosphere to expand its limits into the nearest compartment. Mid-latitudes have such a strong friction with high latitudes that the barrier separating Arctic circulation from Mid Latitudes begins to wear off its strength becoming wobbly in altitude and latitude. Like releasing the tension in a guitar string. Such wobbly behaviour allows mid-latitudinal masses of air to invade a new compartment. The Arctic circulation.
Such increase in the volume of space to be occupied by the energetic overloaded mid-latitudinal masses of air increases the amount of kinetic energy which can be converted in work expanding its volume. Such conversion creates a pause in temperature increase. However, like a pressure cooker when releases vapour pressure from inside, the temperature stops from increasing but it does not decrease. And at the same time, the system now can accommodate more energy in an expanded volume of space. The energy pool keeps increasing and it becomes evident in the different forms of extreme discharges we see for all different forms of energy, from gravimetric energy by the volume of water and precipitations, kinetic in the form of windy events, tornadoes, etc… as well as heat waves and cold displacements triggered from intrusions of warm air into the Arctic volume.
Simultaneously with horizontal movements, the expansion of the energetically charged mass of air from mid-latitudes starts to interact in the vertical profile of the atmosphere. Such movement, enhanced by the Coriolis effect, pushes warm intrusions into Polar latitudes while raising at higher altitudes, disturbing the lower part of the polar vortex and promoting processes of Sudden Stratospheric Warming.
|December 18, 2015||Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)|
|October 25, 2016||Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)|
Since the viscosity of air is lower for cold air than warm air, the incorporation of kinetic energy into higher altitude, carried by the mid-latitudinal warm air masses, increases the energy being dispersed and weakens the organization of those features built on thermal contrasts. Consequently, the stability of atmospheric features like the Polar Jet Stream and the Polar Vortex, suffer from a decrease in the require resilience of the air masses to keep their momentum and directionality, same as streamlines get altered by a source of heat. As we can see when we observe images wobbling over warm tarmac.
|October 7, 2016||Equatorial Dynamics. A conversation between Joaquin and Matthew (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)|
Q&A by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.
In my actual circumstance as an independent researcher, I don´t have the resources to participate and assist personally to conferences abroad. However, I do try to promote and get involved in any discussion or debate which challenge my ideas and assessments in order to verify their integrity and coherence.
In particular, I addressed the situation over the Arctic in November 2016 in some discussions at the platform LinkedIn which I share as follows: (follow the link at the title to see the publication in full, also at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20129.81760)
9th Feb 2017. Polar Jet Stream and Atmospheric Dynamics. Follow-up over Past and Present Conditions (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) February 9, 2017 ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36764.28802
Something is happening in common between both hemispheres. There is enough energy “in the whole planet” to show off “at the same time”, despite “differences in seasonality“, at “opposite regions of the globe”. Heat is showing up at the Australian summer while hurricane like wind gusts are arriving at higher latitudes in the NH. In both cases, the atmosphere is highlighting its capacity to carry within high amounts of kinetic energy.
(… follow the link at the title to see the publication in full)
- “The influence of kinetic warming at tropospheric level creates instability at higher levels”
Previous assessments discussing this topic:
- “Indicating an increase in atmospheric mixing”
Look at present atmospheric dynamics and compare with previous assessments.
(See also other publications discussing “atmospheric mixing” assessments at the index in the timeline)
Which in turn induces a transition from Orbital Melting towards Kinetic Melting (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. (more on this follow link)
- Seasonality Spring 2016. Continuous follow-up on my previous research assessing atmospheric dynamics. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)2016/03/03
- Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)2016/11/17
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 thing 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 is seen on 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.
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?
Discussion over methodological approaches and “climate drifts.”
Discussing the meaning of Climate Drift.
I am not sure on what is the “rigorous” definition of “climate Drift” that it should be referred to.
As part of the main body of the article I am trying to highlight how difficult it might be seen to classify a “climate change” without knowing what is the “change” we are looking for. Is it a “statistically significant” “change”? for which variables? in which range of time? and location? which margin or threshold is defined and considered as the tipping point marking a “change”?.
However, while we are looking for such extreme event to show up in charts, diagrams and models, followed by significant correlations between them, displacements from previous states of equilibrium, are being observed in different parts of the environment.
Differently from numerical models which rely on conceptualizations incorporated in the design of the algorithms applied, biological niches appear indicating the state of a global interaction between biotic and none-biotic components. A niche refers to the way in which an organism fits into an ecological community or ecosystem. Through the process of natural selection, a niche is the evolutionary result of a species’ morphological, physiological, and behavioural adaptations to its surroundings.
When natural species and niches start to appear where they were not before or by different numbers, it reflects a change in the conditions of the environment where they start to develop.
These populations can migrate following the opportunistic generation of new spaces suitable for their development. Or even, in the same niche, some changes in environmental pressures can change the dominance between species since some may adapt faster than others to the new conditions.
With respect to climatic regimes and niches, variability is part of the dynamic process allowing regeneration and perpetuation of a mature ecosystem in equilibrium. Like the succession of the seasons e.g. summer and winter helps to control the pressure exerted between populations which perform differently in different conditions. The variability incorporated in these conditions becomes a mechanism of regulation moving around a pivoting point which allows the integrity of the system.
When the climatic conditions linked with the development of a specific niche moves from the pivoting point far enough, the synergistic balance in the use and regeneration of resources and energy flows (biotic and none biotic) gets disrupted and requires modifications in the level of performance for all the components of the system.
Looking for what it might be considered the “rigorous” terminology of climate drift I have found that “Stouffer and Dixon (1998) defined climate drift as an unforced trend away from some initial state, with the trend not being part of normally occurring variability about a constant mean state.”
My point of view is that, if there is no agreement about using “climate change” as a terminology addressing the implications from seeing modifications (composition and behaviour) in so many parts of our environment (land, atmosphere/air and water (liquid, solid and vapour)), at least we might find common ground in identifying and/or studying the migration or “drift” of our climatic niches from previous regimes, either by addressing magnitudes, behaviour and/or location.
Biological seasons (like breeding seasons or pollen seasons) are driven by thermodynamic fluctuations. Similarly occurs in the atmosphere with seasons defined by hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
In 2002 I started to be involved in the study of atmospheric dynamics driving the release and transport of biological particles. In this field called Aerobiology I did my PhD researching how atmospheric conditions affect the aerodynamic behaviour of pollen grains when airborne. And in 2008, I performed research (later published a paper) highlighting modifications in biological pollen seasons (start earlier and ends later) due to climatic alterations triggered by urbanization levels. Similarly, I have been observing and studying atmospheric dynamics for the last 4 years and I believe that seasons characterised by weather events are shifting their behaviour becoming more erratic. I discuss it also in the post “Aug 2016 Follow-up on previous assessments. Atmospheric Dynamics, Temperature Displacements, Atmospheric Mixing (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)” Posted on August 26, 2016
This comment was extended in a new dissertation as a publication on its own:
Climate Drift, The True Meaning of Things and the Drift of Those. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) September 2, 2016
At the publication Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) 2015/07/02 one commenter (thanks, Jaime) called my attention over the application of the words “Climate Drift” in my publications. And I was asked: Are you implying a rigorous definition of this terminology?
I want to leave my answer as a topic on its own with this publication.
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.
As recent as January 29, 2018 a new discussion addressing similar topic has been originated:
Comment opening a discussion at the publication Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) July 2, 2015:
_ (by Jaime) Climate has already been defined in the past as a 30 year average of a set or any of a kind of variables that define Climate by the OMM since a long time ago. We might refer particularly to Temperature Variable, though. In my view, that needs to be held in order to keep consistency in the definition of concepts. Otherwise it would not be possible to do consistent analysis of Climate.
Hi Jaime. I answered it in to the previous publication where I discus how volatile is the use of such methodology under my point of view.
I base my arguments in two major aspects, one is time and the other variables. About Time; the constant change for the period used to define what is “normal” is just the perfect example of the “boiling frog” tale. As it was summarised in some discussions at the WMO, we should consider the possibility that, under a changing climate, some kind of tipping point could be passed, leading to a large and sudden change in one or more fundamental climate variables. But also, the use of temperature as the pivoting point around which everything gains or loses meaning is highly limited by the understanding on what temperature means. And science is yet far from identifying what happens when temperature disappears and is not measured as outgoing waveforms.
A perfect example on today’s time is the fact that the ENSO as it is defined based on temperature, do not match with the dynamics that “temperature” should deliver. And I see two reasons, one behind temporality, the use of timing, and the other one behind the understanding of what moves the ENSO and what the ENSO moves.
In the current days we are going to witness a pattern over the Arctic which is more relevant than any other feature in the whole globe. For my research, it corroborates previous thoughts that I have presented in the matter, but also strengthens my thoughts over other mechanisms and dynamics which I can not address until my previous assessments are grounded over a stable “professional and economical framework”.
Comment (by Jaime.)_You have written “the constant change for the period used to define what is “normal” is just the perfect example of the “boiling frog” tale”. So, would you agree that the period defined by the WMO many years ago as 30 years must be held without change, so as to keep conceptual consistency in the analysis?
Actually I do not agree with that “the period defined by the WMO many years ago as 30 years must be held without change, so as to keep conceptual consistency in the analysis”.
That is like considering that the margins defining a state of good “health” (the variables that can be assumed for a healthy person) and the risks of exposure to changes for those variables (and for external ones) are the same for a child 3 months old, 2 years old, 15 years old, 40 years old or 80 years old.
There is no conceptual consistency in the analysis of variables when those are not understood.
How many times do the breaks in your car have to fail in order to recognise the problem as statistically significant before you go to the mechanic? If you are in charge of the security protocol followed for a launch sequence at NASA, would you define as safe a system for which among 100 tests there was just one single failure? What is important is not how many times something happens “out of the normal”. The question is to recognise that it has happened. And that means that the system “can adopt as a reality” all the environmental requirements for such event to happen. Knowing that a single event out of the normal has happened is defining the existence of a new configuration in place already. Otherwise, this event would not exist.
Now, for those with the mentality divided between “normal” and “out of normal” it becomes very difficult to consider a change in a system. They only see “new events” in an “old system”. However, the reality is that, when defining a system by the number and type of expressions of reality within, any new event in shape, form, frequency, longevity, location, … it only describes the existence of a new reality as whole, a new system resilient to leave behind the old but evolved enough to allow the developments of the new.
I understand why they do it but I see many restrictions in this methodology so I have decided to apply a different methodology in my assessments.
As you can see in my assessments I have chosen to use a different approach.
How would you “classify a “climate change” without knowing what is the “change” we are looking for? Is it a “statistically significant” “change”? for which variables? in which range of time? and location? which margin or threshold is defined and considered as the tipping point marking a “change”?
Some related assessments:
– May 15, 2014. “The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2400.2324
– June 26, 2015 The scope of Environmental Science and scientific thought. From Thought-driven to Data-driven, from Critical Thinking to Data Management. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2007.0161
October 9, 2017 Statistical Significance and The Scary Side of Being Mild (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21934.61767
Jaime: In my view you are looking for a statistical significant change in a “long period average”.
My assessments describe patterns being showcasing their presence in a stronger manner through time, and that is what I take to identify the directionality of the climate drift that I see.
As you can see in my publications I have been looking over all the processes that I have been able to identify and I see a “choreography” unifying all processes, from Arctic dynamics, ENSO, Land Use and Cover, GHGs, Ecosystem’s degradation (thermodynamically), …
The conclusions are published in pieces like this one:
August 31, 2017 Climate. A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. The “Drama”, Character Driven VS Plot Driven (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18509.13289
Actually, I do not know what else to look at.
Take a look at the publication “a climate between waters” and watch what is happening at the Arctic.
The read the publication “Arctic amplification vs Arctic absorption”.
And follow the links, if you have time and find them worth of your attention.
Thanks Jaime for commenting.
I have to leave now. I am at the local library and it is closing.
I am sorry, Diego, I feel your argument does not go directly to the point I am making. I look for a statistically significant change.
Then go to the publication “Revisiting the theory of gradients of energy” and look at the animation with stats. Also look at the images from this present publication above over changes in water vapour intrusions at Arctic latitudes.
Now I have to leave and I have to do my shift in a bar. I will comeback. Thanks.
Diego, you are not addressing my question related to the statistical analysis of significance.
I appreciate your interest in my input but are they not, all my assessments, writing, and comments, just addressing the question related to “the statistical analysis of significance”?
The discussion about offering statistical “proof” is so wide, wild and extended through the media that you can pick up any site you want and read about all the controversy surrounding each and every analysis offered. So the question is what would it be “significant for you”. What type of data do you want to be used, ground-based stations, plane, balloon, moored buoys and drifting buoys, ice cores, tree rings, or satellite? Which variables should make the job for you, temp, solar, humidity, concentrations, structure, …? Which format should you apply for the datasets, raw data or smoothed? time series or accumulative averages? Averages of which periods? daily, monthly, yearly, decadal, 30 years mean? Would you prefer day and night differentiation all together? Which level of filtering should you apply to reduce noise in your data? Which filtering, temporal, spacial (2d or/and 3d), strictly statistical …? How would you differentiate outliers in your data between those representing a “significant” tipping point from those from methodological flaws?
Everyone is trying to find a way to put a sticker, a label, which would highlight what it is natural variability and what is not. All my formation and experience has been focused on understanding the triggers of natural processes. Natural processes only “vary” from a “normal” trend when the triggers change.
So, I have offered an extended body of work representing a wide range of assessments exploring those changes in our planet which could be triggers inducing a change in the behaviour of natural processes coalescing into a climatic drift. Those “triggers” can be identified as “significant” changes in the composition and structure of the three phases of our global planetary system, gaseous (composition and structure of the atmosphere), solid (composition and structure of the soils) and liquid (composition and structure of the water bodies). All together with a “significant” deviation in the energy flows previously dominant in our planet, which begun being driven by biochemical photosynthesis and now is becoming dominated by anthropogenic processing.
The changes found in the different part of the ecosystem might not show their “statistical significance” being analysed independently due to many reasons, including methodological bias.
But my question to you is, do you think that there has been any period of time in the history of the planet where all these changes in the composition, structure and state of functionality, of all the phases of the ecosystem, have happened at the same time? And ultimately, is not that enough to make it “statistically significant” as to be a matter of concern considering the feedback coming from the alterations triggered in all the processes with which those phases are linked?
If what I have offered through my assessments and dissertations is not enough, maybe I am not the one whom can give you the answer that you are looking for. Hopefully, you will find your answer following your method and we will meet again, may be reaching the same conclusions.
Some of my publications addressed throughout my comment:
March 23, 2017, Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33915.82726
In climate, it is becoming Less probable to not have a High probability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 29, 2015
Thanks, Diego, for your extended reply, I keep respect for it.
The variable I am interested in, at this point, is “Global 30yr-average Air Temperature”.
My choice of statistical significance is 95% at the present state of my research. I might go to your question once I have gone through your answers to mine.
There is just so much a person can do by itself. With my activity and the work that I put offering assessments and my input throughout discussions, I am not just seeking attention to feed my ego but to feed my stomach trying to make myself worth of investment/funding and increase my chances to find a position with a stable income (if that is a sin I am guilty). Beyond from that, as a PhD performing research without support, I am representing what it happens to all those whom have lost their grants, their funding at their universities, their contracts in their institutions, and suddenly, suffer the consequences of finding themselves out of the research industry and with so much to discuss. The Research Industry is like the music industry. It is not about how good you are or what do you have to offer, but how much you can generate. I offer my Intellectual portfolio contained in my research and my skills.
The “scientific method” was defined as a set of parameters under which it was possible to contrast the validity of scientific conclusions. That meant that a scientific posture should be described in such a way that any other scientists (or any person) should be able of reaching similar conclusions repeating same approach “or” by adopting other approaches looking into same developments. Publishing in a peer review process was incorporated to add some form of control over the raising number of claims. But there is no scientific method involving a publication in order to make a contribution in the state of knowledge. And the mechanisms of control have been taken to an industrial level. Those “crying” for their recognition should be included in the same category as the Canary “crying” in the coal mine or the one shouting “the king in nude”. In today’s time it has become an issue to become aware of the difference between crying and making a statement. It is not only about gender, or celebrities. The abuse of power touches all sectors of society, research and science included. “Una científica rompe el silencio sobre los contratos ilegales en centros de investigación” https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/16/ciencia/1516127510_569746.html
The whole project published at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com has been under review for more than a year. Since this is an open process, in the “Public review” page you can explore all the shares published at LinkedIn making available all publications for public review throughout time. If you have a LinkedIn account you can access to those posts and see the comments and the reaction generated, though many visits have chosen to keep silent. This project has been carried out without economic or institutional support, independently from ideological pressures and limited only by access to resources. The project contains innovative approaches offering discussions applying original imagery and methodological developments. Since 2013 it has received more than 20000 visits from outside LinkedIn and more than 200000 views at LinkedIn without arguments against its validity. Science has channels to evaluate the contribution of publications supported by research grants.
Now the question is how to evaluate the contribution from what is generated outside those walls.
The assessments presented in this line of research are not weather reports but interpretations over emerging dynamics, offering arguments and discussion addressing the lack of understanding acknowledged in academia in order to identify mechanisms giving sense to data.
(Cohen et al, 17 AUGUST 2014 DOI:10.1038/NGEO2234 “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”)
Jennifer Francis pointed out, in November 2014, “many of your statements had not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research.” Which means that my assessments offer unsettled and unprecedented assessments applied in science.
Therefore, under the pressure of developing a line of research without economical support, the best review I can make to validate my assessments has to be throughout the test of time.
For 4 years I have been sharing assessments at weekly basis.
Such agenda has generated a calendar of publications linking assessments over atmospheric dynamics with particular periods of the year. It is my belief that altogether there is a pattern built between all those assessments and periods of time.
After leaving months, even years of time to expose my assessments for public discussion and review, once those have no faced any criticism or arguments refuting their value, I create a pdf file and a DOI publishing them at my profile in Researchgate.
In order to maintain their genuineness and legitimate innovative nature, I keep its original state so those can be compared with any copy made by any third party at any time. For your own references and review over its originality over time with respect to other publications via scientific papers and/or news reports, you can compare the publications at the blog and Researchgate with the records archived:
- At the web.archive.org site: http://web.archive.org/web/*/diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
- ResearchGate profile https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diego_Fdez-Sevilla
- LinkedIn Public shares https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/diego-fdez-sevilla-phds-research-reach/
- Original Timeline https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
- Twitter: @SevillaDF
The conclusions reached after following the arguments presented throughout all the assessments carried out as part of the whole project can be summarised in two publications:
- March 23, 2017 Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33915.82726 AND
- August 31, 2017 Climate. A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. The “Drama”, Character Driven VS Plot Driven (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18509.13289)
About Peer Review validations please read: July 6, 2016 Research From The Bench (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.))
Research Follow -Up
In order to maintain the continuity of the process of open review offered over my line of research through my blog, ResearchGate and at LinkedIn, throughout 2016 I have kept re-sharing previous assessments to be contrasted against following real-time ongoing developments.
In the following video you can see an example of the activity associated with this process of exposure and review seeking feedback from members of LinkedIn but also a broader community since the publications are accessed also freely from outside the platform.
In the following page you can look at all the publications exposed at LinkedIn on its original date of publication and also, the times same publications were re-shared in order to test their validity through time. By following the subsequent links you can also access to see the feedback generated.
- LinkedIn Public shares https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/diego-fdez-sevilla-phds-research-reach/