Climate. Drivers and Passengers in a Journey without Destination. Five Years Research By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

Climate. Drivers and Passengers in a Journey without Destination. Five Years Research By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

By 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

In Pdf at Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17259.39208

The line of research presented since 2013 in this Blog and ResearchGate focus on analysing the possible gaps of knowledge addressing Climatic Modifications, “Filling-In or/and Finding Out those Gaps of knowledge”.

As part of the strategy followed with my work I have chosen to re-publish previous analyses trying to highlight the difference between weather and climate.

While weather is a description of the events being unfolded in real-time, climatic developments can be described as the repetition through time of common features shared between weather conditions pointing to new patterns in global circulation and the driving mechanisms behind those.

Such approach helps to make clear difference between what it can be seen as unprecedented and what it can be seen as unexpected.

In 2013 and 2014 mainstream media covered weather events based on that:

  • the displacements of cold Arctic masses to mid latitudes were justified by a Polar vortex Broken,
  • active cyclonic circulation over the NH was justified by a strong El Niño forcing and
  • Anom warm temp in the Arctic were due to local warm SST.

The assessments offered in my line of research discussed the validity of those interpretations pointing to mechanistic processes suggesting a different pattern where all those features are being driven by instead of being drivers of.

That is, an increase in convective forcing due to an increasingly energised atmosphere by higher contents of water vapour.

The year 2018 is proving to support such assessment with an active circulation, despite the El Niño conditions, warm Arctic driven by mid-latitudinal intrusions and cold displacements without the polar vortex broken.

Comparing the analyses from 2014, 2015 and 2016 with 2018 you can see how well those arguments presented match with current developments (see full index with all analyses published between 2013 and 2018 at the Framework and Timeline page):


Cooking an environment (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)   ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30688.17922 November 7, 2013

Sometimes in researching environmental issues, I have come to think that the approach chosen in most cases is like looking at an already cooked meal, trying to identify the ingredients, the factors such as temperature and the correlations between them.

So we look at it by its presence, trying to identify if it was needed heat or not to prepare the meal, and then, the ingredients.

If there is no need of heat, we will not find any correlation between temperature and the final result, or, it will be a negative correlation so if we use it we will no obtain the desired result.

From there we can move to complex research for a heat-treated meal where we will start looking at the correlations between ingredients and temperature, plus humidity (just because we know that heat induces molecular changes in water making it volatile and therefore it is going to scape from our ingredients making them to dry out)…

And what is my point about this?

My point is: How far correlations are the answer to find the recipe for our environmental questions?

I believe that we find environmental situations like we see already cooked meals, and that we try to find the recipe behind it. What are the ingredients? and the processes? What is it needed to cook such environment?

First of all, it is difficult to find correlations as answers when we don´t know the time line involved in the cooking. Correlations can give answers to direct approaches from a direct impulse reaction. E.g Accordingly heat increases temperature, but it does not mean that it would cook. You only can cook with heat if you can control the temperature, the times and the sequence of processes involved to allow the properties of your ingredients to change in order to obtain the interaction desired to obtain the final meal.

Based on that idea, I like to take more time in identifying combination of parameters which allow or induce changes in the environment instead of taking parameters individually. Because the change in the environment follows an accumulative process as it is in cooking. A stewpot containing two ingredients at the same temperature does not give the same result as if one ingredient reaches a determined temperature, accumulates a period of time under such temperature, and following, a second ingredient is brought with it.

An example of what I am talking about is the use of Humidity and Temperature to search for correlations or instead looking at what are the changes induced into the properties of the environment by combining these two parameters as one only parameter. One way is by evaluating the Vapour Pressure Deficit which gives the capacity of the atmosphere to take or share water. It affects the transpiration of plants, the atmospheric energy transfer system, the dynamics of pollen atmospheric transport, the formation of clouds, …

What a correlation sometimes does not say is if the effect of one parameter in order to be significant has to be before or after something else has happen.

Climate, “normal variability” or “change”? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23557.86244 November 14, 2013

About “normal variability” or “change”, I don´t like to characterize the grade of perturbation of any situation if it has not been defined its stable state first. Variability and change comes within any natural process and I believe sometimes we are limited by our capability to see further than our perceptive limitations to understand how things work in our natural environment. However, I would not be surprised if the grade of perturbation generated by the Human specie development in the global ecosystem (water cycles, land use and cover, global energy balance displacement, alterations in the biota regeneration cycles and biodiversity, displacement of natural resources part of soil regeneration, land features alteration in migration routes, …) triggers reactions in the environment at global scale… would that be out of the plausible?

If we consider our atmosphere as the rechargeable battery that keeps our ecosystem running and that at the same time is getting recharged by the ecosystem functionality in itself, how much perturbation can adsorb the rechargeable cycle until both parts get compromised?

From an environmental point of view I understand that any ecosystem has a limited capacity to absorb perturbations. So, from an hypothetical approach to the subject on human impact versus environmental change I would like to see a case scenario study giving answer to three questions:

  • Could humans alter the ecosystem at global scale?
  • Which part of the ecosystem (soil, atmosphere, light and heat (from our sun), water or living organisms) would reflect primary the impact from human perturbation?
  • What would have to do humans to alter the ecosystem at global scale?

In case the answer is “yes” to the first question, how much of the answer for the second and third questions matches with actual facts?

Climate variability and energy balance. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) At ResearchGate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33706.11203 November 27, 2013

I think that we, as specie, are so used to adapt the environment to our needs that “we” might become the last living specie in the entire ecosystem identifying external interferences in our humanised local environment. It is like trying to identify the hottest day of the summer being all time at home with an air-conditioner keeping 22 Celsius.

Only when our local humanised environment gets affected by an uncontrollable change we start thinking that something must be going on. How hot has to be the day when the air-conditioner is not enough… I am afraid of that if external changes are strong enough to interfere into local ecosystems it means that the forces involved are strong enough to interconnect separated systems reflecting the need for a globalization in order to rebalance unstable situations.
The rest of the living species on earth are more sensitive to environmental changes than us. They feel the environment. If there is any evidence of that other living species are changing in the last decade in their live cycles, reproductive viability, capacity of adaptation, migration routes and timing and that there is a change in the survival success between already settled species I would be more than alert about something global being going on.

My theory (sorry if I am terribly wrong or confused in my approach) is that the energy balance between planet’s surface and atmosphere could be getting unstable.

I believe water plays a major role transferring energy between systems and I wonder if the atmosphere is getting charged with more water/pressure than it used to (defined by the Vapour Pressure Deficit, I used this parameter to research about the moisture contain of airborne pollen in the atmosphere vs aerodynamic properties).

An increase in atmospheric temperature would lead to an expansion in volume, lowing pressure and increasing capacity to retain water. This situation would be also affected by the increasing amount of aerosol in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic and natural sources and the drop nuclei properties of such particles. So I wonder if the alteration in the distribution and availability of the masses of water in the terrestrial surface plus the enhanced capacity of retaining water by the atmosphere could start changing in any way (shape, direction, strength, …) the connections between atmospheric cells redistributing energy across the globe.

Basically I see the role of water in our environment as Lithium in our batteries. The energy carrier of the environment.

Water has potential energy in its three different stages as gas, liquid and solid. The potential energy carried in the structural properties of water intervene in all the processes of our environment. Physical, chemical and biological processes.

The transformation from one stage to another keeps moving the energy cycle at the same time that distributes energy all over the environment.

Deserts depend on energy availability same as our devices depend on battery supply if there is no electricity socket available. And, the daily cycles of the sun creates interruptions of energy supply with no element accessible to retain and transport energy during sun absence as effectively as water does.

The sun could be comparable to what electricity would do with our batteries (more efficiently actually). Thus, the cycle of energy carried by water gets recharged by the sun. The hardware would be the physical features in our environment which do not take energy actively for processing, meanwhile the software would be in the form of all those processes transforming resources actively (thus consuming energy such as plants in photosynthesis). Here we would have an Operative system defined by physical, biological, chemical and thermodynamic laws and applications with defined roles.

Climate ultimately would be the alterations generated in the atmosphere as part of the process for transforming and transferring energy using water as the carrier.

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

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.

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.

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.

Similarly cyclonic events are getting stronger and stationary in location also in the northern Pacific reproducing so-called “Blocking patterns” (Follow the link at the title to see all related figures).

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.

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.

Based on observation, one indication pointing to the existent differential energy gradient in the North Hemisphere could be expressed by the kinetic energy carried by Wind Speed (red and green colours). The kinetic energy carried by the Jet Stream is similar to several cyclonic events and secondary streams getting deviated from the Jet stream. As it can be seen in the image taken the 6th of Nov at 250 hPa (below), the Jet Stream has not enough power to keep its position, being pushed and deflected by several cyclonic events in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. But furthermore, it also loses its configuration as a single stream, getting secondary currents moving to the North and also to the South. In fact, over the Atlantic Ocean, part of the current from the Jet Stream goes so far into the South enough to cross over the Equator.

In this theory, the scenario presented is characterized by seeing the differential gradients of energy between latitudes and throughout altitude being reduced as consequence of the broader distribution of the extra energy stored by the increase in greenhouse gasses and water vapour.

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) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488

The Winter of last year 2013/2014 was characterised by the meteorological phenomena of having the North Polar Vortex broken. Most extreme climatic events were associated to this phenomena but, is it necessary to have the Polar Vortex broken to observe such climatic events as those observed last winter?

Last year’s winter 2013/14, the mayor impact associated between the break of the Polar Vortex and the weather conditions was the effect of such event in the Polar Jet Stream. However, at this part of the year, with a Polar Vortex in one piece and not even in the Winter of 2014/2015 yet, we can see already a wobbly Jet Stream already broken and wobbling as much as we saw last year with the Polar Vortex broken.

The observed atmospheric circulation at 250 hPa and at 10hPa contributes to support my theory of being the consequence of having a decrease in the differential gradient of energy dictating atmospheric circulation due to a broader distribution of energy in altitude and latitude carried by an increasing amount of atmospheric GHGs and water vapour.

The first law of thermodynamics points to that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Therefore energy can be stored (e.g. Biochemically through photosynthesis into carbon based fuels), transformed (e.g. from chemical to kinetic like the explosion of dynamite) and transferred (e.g. from kinetic energy carried by the wind triggered by adiabatic processes to mechanical energy moving a turbine in a windmill).

Our atmosphere carries energy in different forms:

  • Thermal or heat energy in GHGs,
  • Kinetic energy being carried in the motion of air as a result of adiabatic processes,
  • Latent heat stored by water when evaporates in its form of gaseous state or vapour and release when changes from gaseous state to solid, and,
  • Potential energy contained by the mass of atmospheric water in its solid phase, snow and ice, or liquid, drops contained in clouds and rainfall.

The second law of thermodynamics points to that adding energy into an isolated thermodynamic system, like our atmosphere, would induce increases in entropy as a consequence of dissipation of energy and to dispersal of matter and energy.

The state of maximum entropy of the atmosphere would be both a uniform temperature and a uniform pressure worldwide. Clearly that is not the arrangement that we see, the atmosphere is much more complex than that. There is a systematic decrease in temperature as we move away from the equator towards the poles, and superimposed on that a complex and ever changing pattern of weather systems, with storms, high pressure regions, low pressure regions, pressure gradients, gales, etc., etc. All of these represent a high degree of order (a decrease in entropy) when compared to the uniform condition.

A constant introduction of GHGs and Water vapour in the atmosphere would induce an increase in different forms of energy. An increase in heat stored by GHGs would increase temperature, an increase of water vapour would increase rain fall and, an increase in heat from GHGs and latent heat from water vapour would induce stronger winds in  adiabatic processes. All this energy will start to be accumulated close to the source, getting dissipated firstly by local atmospheric circulation. Such scenario could be comparable with the “heat urban effect”. Similarly, the accumulation and dissipation of those forms of energy would generate climatic events near the source, the troposphere. (more discussion in previous post Looking at the influence of continentality in atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Increases in atmospheric CO2 have being claimed to store energy in the form of heat raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Accordingly, such development would induce the atmosphere to expand allowing more water vapour to be contained. CO2 storing heat and water vapour carrying latent heat and molecular mass add altogether energy in different forms which, in turn, fuel adiabatic processes, weather events and atmospheric circulation.

When considering global circulation, there are patterns of circulation which are built upon strong differential gradients of energy. Warm humid air from tropical or sub-polar regions getting in contact with cold dry air from Polar regions, under the Coriolis effect triggered by the rotation of the Earth, create a current in form of a Jet around the Pole (Lat. 60N) moving from West to East in the North Hemisphere, being called The Polar Jet Stream.

In the first instance, it could be assumed that increasing heat and water vapour contained between the Equator and sub-polar regions would increase the differential gradient of energy between sub-polar and polar atmospheric circulation, increasing the strength of the Jet Stream. That would keep concentrated and isolated cold masses of air from sub-polar circulation. Accordingly, the difference between atmospheric temperature in the Pole and in the Equator would be high and increase with more GHGs.

However, following the second law of thermodynamics, the close contact and persistence of such area of contact would induce in time, an increase in the percentage of air getting exchanged from both atmospheric areas. That scenario would develop a decrease in the difference between Polar and Equatorial temperatures. Situation which can be already observed in the records available.

Here I hypothesise that it can be considered that the volume of the atmospheric system accommodating increasing conc. of GHGs and water vapour has expanded from sub-polar regions into Polar Circulation. Consequently, following the second law of thermodynamics, an added space for those gasses to expand would allow for the atmosphere containing GHGs and water vapour to retain more heat with no increase in atmospheric temperature. Which it could explain why under increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 there has been a so called “pause” in global warming.

The lifespan of a cyclonic event depends on the availability of energy fuelling it and the grade in the differential gradient of energy with its surroundings that keeps its energy from dissipating.

Increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 and Water vapour would incorporate forms of energy not  only into cyclonic events, increasing its strength, but also it would increment the energy in the atmosphere around it. A scenario in which the difference between the energy carried by an atmospheric event and the atmosphere surrounding it is high, the energy in a cyclonic event would dissipate faster, losing strength and resilience. However, we can see in the North Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, cyclonic and anticyclonic events building what it has being called “blocking patterns”, growing from near surface level (1000 hPa) to levels as high as the Jet Stream (250 hPa).

For all of these reasons, I see a reasonable link between the recent observed disturbance in the atmospheric circulation of the Jet Stream, without the Polar Vortex being broken yet, and the possibility of being the result of a decrease in the differential gradients of energy between cyclonic events and atmospheric barriers like the Jet Stream. Under such scenario, the Jet stream loses stability becoming wobbly, allowing more frequent exchange of masses of air between both cold and warm sides.

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

Right or wrong, I am not following main stream interpretations for the links ENSO-Atmosphere-ENSO and it is not my intention here to push my ideas out of context or without arguments.

However, under the constant cry over the El Niño coming, I wonder, could it be El Niño de new “wolf” coming?

Based on the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream since I started to follow it in 2013 I actually believe that the high SST at the Mediterranean sea and the Barents sea with the low SST at the North central Atlantic are better indicators to understand links between oceanic and atmospheric dynamics than the SST anomalies at the 3.4 Pacific Equator.

Under my point of view, the attention driven towards Equatorial Pacific SST is underestimating the existence of a strong connection between Arctic atmospheric circulation and thermal advection and convection processes at subtropical, tropical and equatorial latitudes. And the observational expression of it comes through the behaviour of the Jet Stream and stratospheric teleconnections.

– Previous and current state of research from previous publications in this blog by Diego Fdez-Sevilla

Intrusions of warm and wet masses of air over the Atlantic and West Europe, going from 30lat to 60 and even 80 lat, are keeping repeated since at least 2013, without el Niño or the Polar vortex broken.

I can only interpret the actual state of the atmospheric circulation under the consideration of that the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere has increased (heat waves in summer and warm intrusions into the North in Winter).

As a result, we have a weak jet stream consequence of a wearing off effect from introducing energy carried by water vapour into polar latitudes, despite of having or not a Polar vortex broken.

– My opinion based on previous and actual state of atmospheric circulation.

I maintain what I have wrote in my blog from Nov 2014

The warm SST at the Eq Pacific is part of a cycle, the cold SST at north Atlantic, and warm SST at Barents sea and Mediterranean sea are not (Fig1). Same with SST and Air T anomalies at North Pole. High Eq Pacific SST will bring more moisture in the atm, but what it drives it around comes from the Jet Stream behaviour.

About the recent floods in UK and western north Europe, has anybody picked up the attention over the fact that the amount of precipitation comes in form of water but not snow at such latitudes in December?

More energy should be dissipated in the surrounded atmosphere to keep water frozen in the form of snow, but it didn´t dissipate. Which takes me to my theory of Gradients of energy being reduced in the atmosphere (here and here), and this situation as one of the side effects also with with blocking patterns, Arctic circulation strengthening cross oceanic linkage and heat waves, altogether through water vapour as a carrier of energy.

Also, the latest developments in the North Pacific where a deep low pressure has started to move towards North America resemble to those found in February 2015 (without El Niño yet).

Meteorological Outlook Feb 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Posted on

The conditions over the North Pacific for the 6th of Feb 2015 are dominated by a strong Low Pressure. The interaction of the Jet Stream, pushing from West to East, extents the influence of this Low Pressure creating a corridor of low pressure moving across the North American continent. The current conditions resemble those found previously to the formation of the Storm  Juno beginning on the 23th Jan 2015.

I believe of that this is a team effort in which all patterns have to be considered with all type of approaches. Since there are plenty of scientists looking at climatic developments from the “standard” approach based on previous “settled” indexes and atmospheric configurations, I feel that my best input can come from exploring new paths and possible scenarios where few are looking into.

Something is clear for me, and it has a visual expression which does not need to be going over a 30 years period to be considered relevant.

Strong highs pressures have been seen in the Atlantic in the last 3 years which have played a key role in the circulation of the Jet Stream and the weather events associated with blocking patterns. One example is the precarious situation found In Spain due to a deficit in precipitation whilst surrounded by water bodies.

But the most relevant feature that I have identified in atmospheric circulation over the last years is the synchronic formation of low pressures near UK, North Pacific and Equatorial West Pacific. These represent an interconnectivity between Pacific and Atlantic Oceans never addressed previously and I believe that the Arctic atmospheric circulation is the link between these events.

– Conclusion

The unifying force which drives our planetary systems is the energy which is transferred between biotic and nonbiotic components.

The substance playing a major role in this process of transference is water in all its forms, liquid, solid and gaseous.

The transformation that our systems have suffered have disequilibrated the balance in the distribution of the energy contained by different parts in the ecosystems. Soil has lost capacity to retain water due to urbanization, deforestation, agricultural weathering, chemical alterations of its pH, or, simply this water has just been compartmentalized and redistributed outside ecosystem cycles. Similar lack of water management by natural ecosystems has driven species out of their habitats.

Losing the natural distribution of those processes involved in water retention and evapotranspiration around the globe has increased the effect from GHGs increasing the power for the atmosphere to contain water in vapour form. Still to be added in this function is the evaporation rates from the Oceans and how those have changed due to synergistic effects between wind, acidification and pollution due to detergents, plastics, fuel spills, etc.

Altogether, today we face the challenge of not only reducing the amount of GHGs allowing the thermal conductivity of our atmosphere to hold more water vapour carrying energy, but also, to recover the functionality in our soils and biota to retain in the ground this water. And that goes by avoiding compacting our soils to create surfaces for any type of industrial use and technological support as well as avoiding capturing the majority of the water in compartmented cycles apart from ecosystem functionality. (see related images and animations following the link to the full publication embedded in the title)

November 19, 2015 Following the Behaviour of the Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22052.58246

A wobbly Polar Jet Stream

The possibility of facing a weakening Jet Stream due to a decrease in the Thermal contrast between the Subtropical and Polar atmospheric regions has created scenarios in which the variations in meteorological conditions for a particular location can come without a transition. One week is pretty warm and the next freezing cold. How can that happen?

Polar masses of air and warm mid-latitude masses create a thermal contrast which generates powerful winds moving from west to east, called the Polar Jet Stream. The differences are not only in temp, also humidity and therefore, density. As a result, we can see the behaviour of the boundary layer in motion as two fluids mixing in a turbulent flow.

Back in March 7th 2015 I also discussed the behaviour of the Jet Stream and published a video illustrating the wobbly behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream. However, if in the present post we can see its behaviour in the period of transition from Summer to Winter, in the previous article I showed the transition between Winter to Summer:

Drops of weather by Diego Fdez-Sevilla  ResearchGate  DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33796.63360

The wobbliness of the Jet Stream means unstable interchange of masses of air between both sides. The cold air being pushed down is consequence of warm air moving up. The volume shared by both masses of air, at this level, is finite. So when a volume of air moves Northward, another volume of air has to move Southward. That opens the possibility of seeing warmer temp and colder temp in both sides of the Jet Stream, like those at UK. The question about where can we see patterns of cross latitudinal transport being repeated is what has pointed the attention to blocking patterns. And I propose that those blocking patterns are originated as a consequence of a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation.

(The whole project has reached atmospheric events and synergies throughout 2013 and 2018. See whole index to follow the posterior analyses to the present one discussing, expanding and validating the arguments presented e.g.

Based on the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream since I started to follow it in 2013 I actually believe that the high SST at the Mediterranean sea and the Barents sea with the low SST at the North central Atlantic are better indicators to understand links between oceanic and atmospheric dynamics than the SST anomalies at the 3.4 Eq. Pacific.

2018 Overlook

This year 2018 many of the topics discussed through the line presented show to be supported by conclusions discussed throughout all the analyses presented:

  • There is no need for the Polar Vortex to Break in order to have Arctic displacements into Mid-Latitunal circulation. Tropospheric Circulation fuelled by convective forcing is affecting Arctic circulation from the bottom up instead of the theory suggesting Stratospheric forcing.
  • The ENSO is not a driver of convective forcing over the NH,
  • Convective forcing from Mid-latitudinal towards the Arctic circulation has wear off the gradients of temperature generating a strong Polar Jet Stream.
  •  Arctic warming occurs through atmospheric intrusions from Mid Latitudes,
  • The collapse of the Polar Jet Stream has opened Arctic circulation to Mid-Latitudinal intrusions allowing Trans-Arctic circulation between Pacific and Atlantic Basins.
  •  The global Temperature measured is the resultant of mixing patterns in the atmosphere,
  • Therefore an increase in mixing dynamics creates a pause in temperature raise,
  • An increase in mixing dynamics show an increase in convective forcing,
  • Convective forcing is the work resultant from an increase in atmospheric energy being incorporated in free state,
  • The incorporation and spread of energy in free state into the atmosphere is carried and released by water vapour
  • An increase of water vapour in atmospheric circulation requires an increase in the thermal capacity of the atmosphere
  • The process of enhancing the thermal capacity of the atmosphere comes by increasing the concentration of GHGs, conc of aerosols and land surface albedo.
  • Several processes carried out by human activity are linked with the previous assessment: human activity reduces the capacity of the biotic environment to fix energy from free state into inert state by reducing biochemical processing and storage (CxHxOx photosynthesis and biomass) and increases atmospheric concentrations of GHGs by releasing CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere. Also, land use and cover transformations increase albedo, industrial activities increase aerosols and the compartmentalization of water affects water cycles.
  • In a thermodynamic system the energetic pool is the sum of the amount of energy in free state capable of doing work, and the energy fixed in an inert form as part of mass. The amount of energy in free state is proportional to the amount of energy fixed in inert form as mass (E=mc2). The release of energy from its inert form increases the amount of energy in free state to do work. Energy is not created, neither destroyed. The transformation of the three phases of the environment forced by human activities, gaseous (atmosphere), liquid (water cycle) and solid (land use and cover), increases the amount of energy in free state capable of promoting all forms of work; convective forcing, strong winds, solid and liquid precipitation, lightning, dust storms, heat waves, cold displacements, and ultimately, and increase in atmospheric mixing in altitude and across latitudes.

Recent Analyses covering 2018 developments

Based on previous analyses the assessment for the current situation would be as follows:

Convective forcing keeps dominating atmospheric circulation. The evolution of a pattern being unfolded in front our eyes.

850 hPa temperature / 500 hPa geopotential Thursday 25 Oct 2018. ECMWF.

The warmest anomalies are found in the part of the planet with the lowest radiation from the sun. It is not a warming driven by orbital positioning and planet’s tilt.

Estimated daily dosage of erythemally weighted UV radiation.

No need for the Polar Vortex to Break in order to affect tropospheric circulation from Arctic circulation. Neither superficial waters at the Arctic are loosing temperature into the atmosphere since those waters are “retaining” heat “anomalously”. 

If we look at the conditions of the El Niño and Arctic regions as the consequences of previous dynamics, those conditions are the continuity of a dynamic with an earlier origin which has led to the current situation, and moves forward.

I would like to extend my comment pointing to analyses that I have published offering my interpretation of the reasons explaining this situation:

Arctic Warming

Arctic Amplification takes an assumption open for discussion: “sea ice acts as a barrier for the heat transport from the ocean to the atmosphere.” Actually, sea ice acts as a barrier for the heat transport *from the atmosphere to the ocean. The line of research offered taking Arctic SST as responsible for warming processes is not considering the thermodynamics behind changes in phase (liquid/solid/gas) and the difference between condensible and not condensible GHGs. Heat moves between locations AND phases. SST warming the atmosphere would loose heat, thus forming ice.

Summary of relevant publications addressing Arctic dynamics:

  • 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)

  • Related analyses:
November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24688.35848
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
February 28, 2018 Arctic Warming as a Result of Convective Forcing by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34551.73125

Atmospheric Dynamics

The current line of research studies and discusses current developments throughout publications from 2013 to date. In the analyses presented I offer points of view unifying in a single argument the behaviour of drivers such as ENSO, Arctic Amplification and Polar Vortex configuration. That is, an increase in the atmospheric energetic pool in the form of free state is fuelling a mixing dynamic (Convective motion) responsible for creating fluctuations in temperature patterns, and yet, denoting a constant increase in kinetic displayments.

The increasing warming over mid-latitudes is using water vapour as the carrier of energy incorporating it over the whole atmosphere and into Arctic latitudes. Such mechanism will increase the energy pool at the Arctic, what in other words can be seen as an increase in temperature and processes of SSW affecting the POLAR Vortex configuration.

Furthermore, the spread of energy contained by water vapour also affects the resilience shown by Lows and Highs to dissipate their energy at lower latitudes and affects developments at the ITCZ zone and equatorial wind shear at the Eq. Pacific.

A pattern of change in the atmosphere dynamics beyond considering global warming or cooling. That is, global mixing.

From previous analyses:

October 13, 2016 Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21255.60320

From my line of research I am convinced on that Arctic perturbations at the Atlantic basin (warm intrusions over the Arctic and cold at mid-latitudes) are responsible for the genesis of Tropical Systems due to alterations over the ITCZ.

From there, the behaviour and paths followed by them would also be driven by more Arctic perturbations (combination of warm intrusions at the North Pacific and North Atlantic and cold at lower latitudes) inducing changes in pressure located all around their path, in front and behind their movement.

At least these are part of my interpretations from my observations. There might be experts with a different analyses.

What concerns to my research is the resilience of the storm to dissipate its energy, and I am considering not only the conditions at tropospheric level but also at higher altitudes.

In the latest post in my blog (Equatorial Dynamics. A conversation between Joaquin and Matthew (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. I pointed out that the equator has shown to be warmed up at 50hPa. Altogether it will reduce the differential in the gradients of energy between the storm and its surroundings reducing the dissipation rate of its energy, allowing for it to hover keeping momentum as we have seen with other storms moving for days over the Atlantic. (see video Equatorial dynamics)

In the present publication I want to point out how much interconnected are the processes linking Arctic perturbations (Pacific and Atlantic basins) with the developments at the Pacific and Atlantic ITCZ on generating mixing dynamics in latitude and altitude. (see video Global Mixing Oct 2016)


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

Throughout the line of research presented several animations have addressed the arguments offered supporting with a visual aid the patterns addressed.


31 October 2018 Airmass and IR.

In my assessments I have defended that the increase in the energy pool at mid-latitudes would ultimately create an scenario with an overcharged atmosphere. That would reduce the contrasts with which to create and maintain stability in the structure required to condense energy in singular events, like hurricanes. Giving more relevance to the single contrast between Ocean/continental masses. However, the opening of the Arctic circulation through a weak Jet Stream would reduce the pressure in the containment absorbing the condensation of energy at mid-latitudes, expanding into a new volume.

Accordingly, hadley circulation gets affected (see also) generating new patterns of turbulence at the ITCZ as well as it gets influenced Arctic mixing zones with lower latitudes.

In this scenario TCs are generated under an increase in the mixing ratio of an unstable atmospheric circulation dominated by kinetic energy transferred by water vapour thanks to GHGs, and immersed in an overcharged atmosphere with no place where to diffuse its energy, becoming resilient as long as they stay over the ocean. So they endure like a piece of an ice rock in cold water.

About Sea Surface Temperatures, my assessments take SST as subsequent conditions driven by wind shear. So the interaction between masses of air in circulation allows or inhibits 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 “grounds” where the game will be played (sort of speak). Like the effect of the ice conditions in an ice hockey match.

El Niño is an event which happens in a very small portion of the Earth, it is related to the temperature of a very thin layer of the Ocean in depth (e.g.: uses SSTs at “one meter” depth). A small percentage of the area occupied by the whole Oceanic masses, and even smaller when it is integrated in the multidimensional space combining Ocean and Atmosphere. It is kind of intriguing to think why it has been so easy to conclude that such small portion of the entire system is driving it as a whole. It is like considering that the flowering of plants drives the seasons. Similarly it could be said about using SST at the Arctic to justify altogether; the lack of ice, warmer temperatures at tropospheric level and even at stratospheric level. There is not enough energy in the SST of such small area as it is the Arctic to justify all those convective dynamics.

In the present study I have been very persistent trying to highlight how much relevance it is given to a small area in size and depth driving global circulation as it is the SST at the Eq Pacific while an area of the same size and even more depth could be identified in the Amazon or by the change suffered in Land cover by agriculture at global scale.

We have to keep in mind that SST are measured in the 5 or less m of the Ocean meanwhile Forests can occupy more than 15 meters in depth. And both are sources of the latent heat carried out in the atmosphere which fuels convective dynamics.

  • Between global warming and global cooling there is global mixing.
September 8, 2015 Trans-Arctic circulation between Pacific and Atlantic Basins. A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla).  Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1697.5847
May 26, 2016 Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34019.04645
July 1, 2016 Atmospheric mixing. Indian Basin June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11803.98088
August 26, 2016 Aug 2016 Follow-up on previous assessments. Atmospheric Dynamics, Temperature Displacements, Atmospheric Mixing (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)

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
October 13, 2016 Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21255.60320
May 5, 2017 Mixing Dynamics keep shaping A Roller coaster of Temperatures over South Europe. Follow-up on previous research 5th May 17. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16627.43043
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 14, 2018 Visualising Wind and Convective Forcing Driving Climatic Dynamics. Follow-up 14 March 2018 by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  Pdf available at DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34233.06249
April 19, 2018 Climate, Weather and Energy. Using a Climatic Regime to explain Weather Events by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Research DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27923.58406
May 23, 2018 Convective Forcing Dominates Atmospheric Circulation NH (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23043.20002
June 29, 2018 Seasonal Transitions under a New Climatic Scenario. by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD.  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18385.22881
August 24, 2018 The Arctic Conundrum. Follow-up on previous research by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD   ResearchGate pdf DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15411.68640
October 18, 2018 Arctic Dynamics as part of a Global Pattern in Atmospheric Circulation. Research Follow-up October 2018 (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


Conclusions on:

Weather, Climate, Energy, Environment and Man

The question  driving the whole debate on Climatic Deviations from “a Normal”, or Climatic Drift, focus most of the methodologies on temperature.

However I have followed a different approach in my analyses looking at Gradients of Energy in all its forms. That is why in 2014 I offered my thoughts as a theory of practical applications.

Energy fuels the work done by warm masses of air displacing colder masses of air in their path. That increases mixing patterns generating anomalies in temperature.

Behind an increase in the amount of work carried out by masses of air there is an increase in the energy fuelling such dynamics. Energy can only be transferred, not created or destroyed. So more work means more energy in circulation. More energy in circulation can only be sustained by a substance carrying it. Either if we consider that the energy driving anomalies comes from the Sun or from the Oceans, the carrier has to be in the atmosphere in order for the energy to produce work. And the body loosing heat cools down.

E.g. A corridor of wind over the Arctic is triggered by a conversion of Temperature into work, convection and advection, which are the result of mixing masses of air. As I have published in previous analyses, such Trans-Arctic connection between Atlantic and Pacific Basins is part of a pattern increasing the mixing ratio between masses of air otherwise separated by thermal compartmentalization, like the Polar Jet Stream. An increase in the dispersion of energetic forms have different outcomes, one of which it would be a temporary reduction in the average temperature resultant for the mixing between Cold (Arctic) and warm (Mid-Latitude) masses of air as well as in altitude (SSW).

Subsequently, “temperature” is less reliable than looking at “work” seen even in the “mild” events.

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.”


The analyses performed in my line of research describe a Climatic Drift, from pre-established atmospheric conditions strongly compartmentalised in Altitude and Latitude, towards a Climatic Regime characterised by an instability originated by patterns of Trans-latitudinal and Vertical mixing. An increase in atmospheric motion inducing sudden and extreme changes in atmospheric conditions generating weather events with abnormal properties for a particular location, throughout latitudes, longitudes and altitudes.

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

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.

The main conclusion from my 4 years of researching synergistic interactions between all transformations seen over the Liquid, Gaseous and solid phases of our global Environment indicates that anthropogenic activity is forcing our environment into A System Becoming Dominated By Free Energy. (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18509.13289)

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 instead of following the obsession for Domesticating Natural Behaviour and Geoengineer our Weather. 

Land Use Change through time.

Examples of processes releasing ENERGY FROM ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES

From previous post Domesticating Nature

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels are Decreasing Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 ‘per meg’ per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year.

Scripps O2 Global Oxygen Measurements The Scripps O2 Program measures changes in atmospheric oxygen levels from air samples collected at stations around the world. This sampling network provides a global and hemispheric perspective on oxygen variability. The Scripps O2 Program is based at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California and is under the direction of Professor Ralph Keeling.

Overall Conclusions

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 Seasonal and Climatic regimes from being driven by Orbital Positioning to be driven by more erratic Kinetic processes.

2018 Overlook over Atmospheric Dynamics. Research Framework

Since 2002 I have performed research over the Atmospheric Dynamics interacting with the biota in the field of Aerobiology (PhD studying atmospheric conditions affecting the efficiency of pollen sampling and the aerodynamic behaviour of pollen. Conclusions here. Article on anthropogenic forcing over plants performance here).

In Oct 2013 I focused my attention over climatic dynamics.

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.

In  AUGUST 2014, Cohen et al, published a review over the state of knowledge on Climatic Assessments (DOI:10.1038/NGEO2234) The final remark stated 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”)

Based on my analyses, 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.

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

In December 2014 I sent several emails asking for feedback. The 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.”

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 Arctic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Arctic 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 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, 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.”

In Feb 2015 I published a revision and since then, a constant follow-up throughout more than 230 assessments.

A Seasonal Calendar

Such activity generated a seasonal calendar or agenda, linking atmospheric dynamics and particular periods of the year as part of a pattern.

This calendar has allowed me to create a framework over which to identify atmospheric dynamics linked throughout the seasonality driven by Solar tilt and its deviations between years. One example can be found over the conditions found at the Arctic and its implication over Mid Latitudinal and equatorial developments.

Some examples among the +200 analyses published between Oct 2013 and March 2018 are in the following section. See full index of analyses and their DOI’s following the link here. Open individual analyses to read in full by clicking over the title.

Climate Drifts

Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) July 2, 2015
September 2, 2016 Climate Drift, The True Meaning of Things and the Drift of Those. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)


InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
December 11, 2015 Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? Discussing SST ” El Niño ” and Climatic Developments. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 22, 2016 Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Solar activity

April 10, 2014 Exploring the effects of humanly generated factors in the role played by Solar activity in the climate. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 24, 2015 Solar Activity and Human Activity, Settling Their Environmental Liability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36702.33606
September 22, 2016 Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)


December 9, 2015 SOILS. The Skeleton Holding The Muscle On Our Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
March 31, 2016 Plant growth, CO2, Soil and Nutrients. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

Biological Productivity in our atmospheric and climatic developments.

August 14, 2014 Biotic players and atmospheric processes. Another piece of the puzzle. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
Debating Climate, Environment and Planetary evolution. Define your position. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) October 2, 2014
June 26, 2014 Biological Productivity and its Influence on Cloud Formation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
December 22, 2014 Biological Productivity, Amazonia and Atmospheric Circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 7, 2015 Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 20, 2015 News from an Ecosystem (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
June 18, 2015 Extreme climatic events, implications for projections of species distributions and ecosystem structure (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
August 2, 2016 Environmental Questions and Answers for Petrol Fans (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
March 15, 2017 Blooming Activity of Biotic Processes All The Way Round the Globe (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Arctic Amplification and Antarctic dynamics.

October 7, 2015 Arctic Intake of Water Vapour (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 30, 2015 Follow-up on Arctic circulation 30 Oct 2015 ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 5, 2015 There is Ice or Frost In Antarctica? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
June 10, 2016 The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. Peer review verification on previous assessments (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
November 10, 2016 Cyclonic Alignment Towards the Arctic (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
November 17, 2016 Arctic Amplification versus Arctic Absorption (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
March 3, 2017 The Antarctic Bubble (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Trans-latitudinal Dynamics. Equator-Tropics-Mid Latitudes-Polar

January 28, 2015 The origin of the Storm “Juno” 27 Jan 2015 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
September 8, 2015 A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla).
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.)
March 8, 2017 Those Little Things in Atmospheric Dynamics. Juno, Jonas, Mathew and Joaquin (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
February 28, 2018 Arctic Warming as a Result of Convective Forcing by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34551.73125


In climate it is becoming Less probable to not have a High probability. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 29, 2015
June 5, 2015 Climate and Data. Drinking From the Source (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
October 21, 2015 Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
October 16, 2015 SST Anomalies and Heat Waves. Are They Not All Just Heat Displacements? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
January 20, 2017 Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Scientific Method

February 21, 2014 Resilience in our models (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
February 25, 2014 Resilience in our environment. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
“The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything” is … 42 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 15, 2014
When the order of the factors does affect the product. “A Changing Climate can affect the diversity of an ecosystem” Vs “Changing the diversity of an ecosystem can affect the Climate”. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 21, 2014
Communication takes more than just publishing thoughts. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) June 9, 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) June 26, 2015
InFormAtion. The “Act” of “Giving Form” to “Knowledge” (by Diego fdez-Sevilla) September 30, 2015
March 10, 2017 Modelling the “Model” and the Observer (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)


July 17, 2014 Could plastic debris, coarse, fine and molecules (polymers), affect oceans functions as climate regulator, CO2 sink, albedo, evaporation…? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
August 6, 2014 Inland sanctuaries of water vapour for atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)


May 13, 2014 Looking at the influence of continentality in atmospheric circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)


October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (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.
March 10, 2016 Tangled in Words. Atmospheric Dynamics, Stefan Boltzmann Calculations and Energy Balance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 26, 2016 Atmospheric Circulation and the Mixing Zone. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
May 30, 2016 When Temperature Becomes Something Else (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
July 1, 2016 Atmospheric mixing. Indian Basin June 2016 (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.)
September 14, 2016 Between Global Cooling and Global Warming There Is “Global Mixing” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.)
December 17, 2016 Orbital Seasonality vs Kinetic Seasonality. A Change Triggered from Changing the Order of The Factors (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
April 19, 2018 Climate, Weather and Energy. Using a Climatic Regime to explain Weather Events by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Research DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27923.58406
May 23, 2018 Convective Forcing Dominates Atmospheric Circulation NH (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23043.20002


Talking about climate (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) May 12, 2015
August 6, 2015 Atmospheric Composition and Thermal Conductivity. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)
April 6, 2016 Atmospheric Dynamics, GHG’s, Thermal Conductivity and Polar Jet Stream (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33911.32167
November 25, 2016 Atmospheric Thermal Conductance (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32238.10566

Ultimately, the best review available to judge the validity of any theory on mechanisms and synergies comes with the real time contrast between previous assessments and present conditions.

Imagery and Methodology

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 is going on, I wonder, what is right this days?.

After leaving months, even years of time to expose my conclusions 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:

This work is protected under Intellectual Property laws licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.)

EGU discussed open science in 2017. GDB4 – Is Open Science the way to go?”. Min 27. The currency of data and data parasites. Min 35 Creative commons license. Min 45 Data Sharing and rules of engagement. min 56 Q&A Data Citations and Credit on producing data)

More related Analyses from 2018


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: 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 ( 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 ( 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:! 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) **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) or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and 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 ***
This entry was posted in Energy Balance, Environmental Resilience, Extreme climatic events, Filling in, Polar vortex and Jet Stream, Solar activity, Water vapour and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Climate. Drivers and Passengers in a Journey without Destination. Five Years Research By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD

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

  2. 5th July 2019 Follow-up
    Republished at linkedin:
    Diego Fernandez Sevilla, Ph.D.
    Biologist, Aerobiologist and Environmental Analyst (
    Welcome to our Destination. Hail in Chile, Finland and Mexico, Tornados in China and Romania, Heat in central Europe. I am not capable of following what is the discussion about. Some people want research applied to address real time weather phenomena. Would my offer be valid? Recap on previous assessments:
    October 31, 2018 Climate. Drivers and Passengers in a Journey without Destination. Five Years Research By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Pdf at researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17259.39208
    web search news:
    * May 1, 2019. Romania tornado overturns bus and leaves 12 hurt – BBC News

    * Jun 11, 2019 China rains: Thousands stranded after record downpour – BBC News
    * Jul 1, 2019 Freak hail storm blankets Guadalajara_ Mexico in ice.
    * Jul 1, 2019 Watch: Hail pummels south-east Finland, turns ground wintry white. YLE News-
    * 3 July 2019 China tornado: Kaiyuan City left devastated as disaster kills six people … › News › World
    * 5 July 2019. Sahara Desert winds that blasted Europe last month, concentrated in a five-day heat wave that left people sweltering, made it the hottest ever.
    BuzzFeed News
    #research #climatechange #diegofdezsevilla #globalmixing


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.