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


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

CV english and españolResumeInterdisciplinary Skills applied in the line of research presented.- Index for all analyses published. – Shares and Feedback at LinkedIn. DOIs for those publications mentioned can be found at the Framework and Timeline Page.

In response to:

Robert Tracinski from https://thebulwark.com/ Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’.

” ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity.  Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski

Judith Curry from “Climate etc”, https://judithcurry.com/  Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’ (Posted on )

Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.

But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.

There are a lot of people these days who like things that sound science-y, but have little patience for actual science.

The problem is the word “belief.” Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments. You don’t say, “I believe in thermodynamics.” You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t. “Belief” doesn’t really enter into it.

So as a proper formulation, saying “I understand science” would be a start. “I understand the science on this issue” would be better. That implies that you have engaged in a first-hand study of the specific scientific questions involved in, say, global warming, which would give you the basis to support a conclusion. If you don’t understand the basis for your conclusion and instead have to accept it as a “belief,” then you don’t really know it, and you certainly are in no position to lecture others about how they must believe it, too.

Because science is about evidence, this also means that it carries no “authority.” The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba—”on no one’s word”—which is intended to capture the “determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”

That’s the opposite of what “I believe in science” is intended to convey. “I believe in science” is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism. – Judith Curry

My response:

_________________________________________________

For as long as anyone involved on science, sceptics, supporters, … do not know what is the meaning of outliers in their data, they become believers of their own method, their own data and their own interpretations over the results obtained. I know that because in 2003 I did a PhD on it. – Diego Fdez-Sevilla.

_____________________________________________

The Method, A Matter of Trust.

In the line of research that since 2013 I have presented on environmental synergies, I have tried to offer enough data in all shapes and forms to support a point of view.

However, I realised that the major limitation to find validation from different postures does not come from lack of agreement between different methods or data sets, but from the interpretation of the observer for the results discussed and the lack of awareness over the role played by the “standardization of acceptance for the margins of error”.

That was something which played a fundamental part in my thesis back in 2003.

The aim was to assess the aerodynamic behaviour of pollen grains by standardizing their settling speeds. But behind addressing the question of delivering values to represent one single parameter (settling speeds) there was a bigger challenge found in a world of limitations since the values obtained to describe a behaviour are the interaction between numerous variables, and the representativeness of those are defined by the level of uncertainty incorporated with the instruments supplying measurements. Then there is the limitation of our algorithms representing the norms under which our variables interact in our mathematically created world.

Something learnt in my thesis is the limited representation carried by all instrument. One major factor is the location of the instrument and the other the design.

In my thesis I used three particle samplers side by side and data from two meteorological stations. One setted up by me and one from the nearest supply by the Met Office (I was in Worcester UK).

For the three particle samplers one was applying sedimentation and two using suction. The three of them give different measurements, but within an “acceptable margin of difference” based on their sensitivity measuring variations for the measurements obtained. That was something I assessed in a wind tunnel at Rothamsted Institute in Harpenden. The reality of things is that, if you put the same instrument separated in location and altitude, even 20 meters of difference in the horizontal and vertical space, you will have different measurements. Similar for meteorological data. The interference of the surroundings in atmospheric circulation affect your instruments and their measurements, the materials used in their construction, the design, the setup, …

The sampling site chosen for any instrument has an effect over its measurements so it becomes a matter of trust to work with the measurements obtained, and the most accepted protocol to reduce bias when building data sets between locations with their instruments is based on relying over the use of the most similar instruments, or even the same design, so any factors affecting the data obtained has the same margin of error, despite the fact that no one really knows which that might be and how much it might affect the data. For the same day, one instrument in a location with a windy situation and another in different location with no wind, and you end up having both instruments suffering different deviations in their efficiency. And that goes to particle sampling and metrological data.

Instruments represent the reality of the measurements which they are designed for, and introduce a bias, since environmental conditions move in wider ranges than the design of any instrument. The environment affects the variable being measured, the variable affects the efficiency of the instrument and the design of the instrument the measurements.

The type of data obtained from the measurements are already biased by the design of our instrument. It can be due to the format (binary data, numerical data, qualitative, …) it can be due to its sensitivity through the time set to capture samples, by the interferences of other variables unaccounted for, and even by the shape of the data set built either from spatial dimensions or qualitative limitations.

An instrument measures just what it is designed for, which is only what the designer has been able to identify and the technology available allows to.

So the method is static whereas the variables measured are dynamic, the narrowness of the value for the data describing the variables is far more restricted than the variables in themselves. Measuring heat can be done with mercury, the expansion of a fluid, but it will not describe if it is enough to trigger forms of work associated to processes being activated or inhibited in the environment. Is it an “active” form of heat or a passive one? A sensor in a satellite can read wave lengths “associated” with processes. Two processes sharing wave length would not be identified easily, or processes restricting each other.

That is just the challenge of building a data set worth to be considered as an accurate description of the environment that we want to model.

In conclusion, data is a description over how your instrument reacts against a parameter of your choice, and the ultimate process of validation, and limitation, comes by the capacity of the observer to make sense out of it and judge its coherence.

It does not matter how advance is our telescope if we do not know where to aimed for. Data is not meaningful if we do not know what generates it. And one do not get valuable for how much data has but by what is capable to do with what he has.

Based on my previous experience, and being aware of the limitations behind offering data without any requirement for showing even an attempt of making sense out of it or even discussing the margins of error contained, behind all the analyses presented in my line of research since 2013, I have focused my attention in a primordial aspect,

what makes sense with the data that we have?

Because I do not want to believe that any data offered to me represents what somebody thinks. What I want is to understand what is it that generates the data.

And I can only be amazed by seeing so many attempts by “deniers and supporters of climate change”.

The fact is that many users of data believe in what they see in their data sets but lack many responses about how many outliers have left outside in the process, or what affects their values, or even if a X-Y correlation is synchronicity, correlation or causation. Like temperature and ice. Both are correlated since temperature can melt ice and ice melting can drop surrounding temperature. But which one goes into X or Y axis?. Actually, you can even have both in the same axis since an external source of heat it would increase temperature and melt ice at the same time. And vice versa.

We have a reached a point in which many discussions based on data are actually using beliefs even without being aware of it. Since it is allowed to built data sets without understanding what is that it generates them, In Science Worst Than Using Beliefs to Make Decisions, Is Doing It and Not to Be Aware of It.

It is my only hope that my work serves to break barriers building bridges between sectors and levels of society with what it was considered restricted to those living in Ivory Towers. I see myself as a person whom believes in the capacity to understand over the capacity to believe.

The Observer, Also A Matter of Trust.

Back in 2013 I had conversation where someone told me that the climate change argument was an invention based on manipulation. When I tried to offer any argument I was told that my claims were based on publications made with hidden agendas. And I could not say that it was wrong because I do not know the agendas for those behind their papers.

Therefore, I decided to look into the subject on my own, with my own methodology, my savings, and my skills, leaving aside any preconceptions based on claims by others that I could not provide with my own analyses. I would like to offer you all the work that I have done since then for you to judge if there is any valuable content. It might not be pretty, it might not be appealing but I can ensure that it is raw and painfully honest.

If anyone is wondering what is that I am “selling” in my line of research, based on my analyses I am just saying that:

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. Anthropogenic activities are linked with all the processes mentioned above by transforming the composition and structure of all the phases of the environment involved: the gaseous, solid and liquid. And furthermore, inhibiting the capacity of the biotic system to capture and retain energy from free state into inert state.

The approach followed in the line of research  here presented has discrepancies with the path followed by mainstream in aspects as such:

  • the ENSO is not a driver but instead it is driven by,
  • that the Polar vortex configuration is not “the cause for” but “the result of”,
  • that SST are a consequence and not the trigger, and
  • that the biotic component in the planet is the only responsible for taming our climate, avoiding a complete release of energetic discharges from Sun´s exposition.

Furthermore, something in common for all previous ice ages is that none of them were an expansion in the territory for cold conditions while the centre of such area remained unaltered or even warmer than previous periods. Something we see now for the first time as  far as my knowledge goes on ice cores.

 

My interpretation is that never through the previous periods of time there has been a coalescence in time and space (geologically speaking) for a simultaneous alteration in the stratification of the composition, structure and concentration of the components part of the thermodynamic ecosystem built upon the synergistic interactions between soils, gases and water. In geological terms the only way to move backwards in time is by a sequence of events but never when everything happens at once.

If I am wrong in my conclusions it is entirely the result of my own limitations. And if I am right soon enough you will see somebody claiming their credit in publications without my name. This is all I have for you; to dismiss, criticise, ignore, or whatever you like. Other people from universities is reading it an no one has challenged my publications so I guess you should also be aware of its existence.

https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com

Some examples of analyses carried out Assessing The Method and Assessing Climatic Dynamics:

The Method

“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 May 15, 2014
June 5, 2015 Climate and Data. Drinking From the Source (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
Debating Climate, Environment and Planetary evolution. Define your position. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27332.73603 October 2, 2014
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 June 26, 2015
February 17, 2017 State of Knowledge. Between The Walls Of Silence There Is A Silhouette With The Form Of An Interrogation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
March 10, 2017 Modelling the “Model” and the Observer (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17558.04169
February 6, 2018 Feb 2018. Climate Drifts and The Scientific Method of Waiting 30 Years. Follow up on previous assessments by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18823.09122

___________________________________________

Recent analyses

Throughout the Winter 2019, cold “and warm” dynamics at tropospheric and stratospheric levels have happened simultaneously. Those dynamics show a pattern through the seasons where warm temperatures move north followed by a stratospheric Warming process which promotes a weak Polar Vortex. Despite all the theories available my interpretation is different about what is happening.

Between global warming and global cooling we are living under a process of global mixing, promoted by an increase in the atmospheric energy pool, using water vapour as the carrier of such energetic extra, thanks to an enhanced thermal capacity generated from increasing GHGs, Albedo and Aerosols. The origin of this imbalance in the energetic pool driving the thermodynamic system can be associated with changes in the composition, structure, location and concentration of the components integrating the Planetary system. Human activities can be associated with all those changes.

Recent temp anomalies NH Feb2019. _____________

Recent Analysis part of the present study. _____________

March 3, 2019 A pattern of change in the atmosphere beyond considering global warming or cooling. That is, global mixing. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Registered DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32693.73445


_________________________________________________

Previous analyses shared in the present study carried out since 2013 and shared also at LinkedIn

The debate on climate focus the attention over the statistical existence of a value capable of unifying postures. The abstract and variable nature of such concept has opened so many lines of discussion that nobody has been able to define a pattern which could be validated against real time developments. In such scenario my line of research over climatic developments has been built upon a framework offering a tangible pattern associated to real time events. Thanks to this approach years can be compared and dynamics can be identified, offering the possibility of validating analyses capable of describing a progression of change which statistical analyses can not due to the constant shift defining ground cero
“2016 I had pointed out patterns in atmospheric circulation based on two years of observation starting in 2013, on the 31st December 2015 I emphasized in LinkedIn the high probability of facing in the winter 2016 a strong Pacific participation in a similar event as it was Juno last year 2015 over the east of EEUU.”
Winters15-16-17-18-19 have delivered events which support these two assessments, seeing water vapour reaching higher Latitudes and a strong Pacific participation in a similar event as it was Juno year 2015 over the east of EEUU.

Observed Atmospheric Dynamics. A Follow-up Assessment Over The Theory Proposed on Energetic Gradients by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28948.19843

(excerpt from the publication: The first assessment included in the theory proposed in this line of research was the increasing probability of seeing water vapour reaching higher Latitudes and the patterns followed in both basins, Atlantic and Pacific.

Another major feature introduced in this line of research has been the application of thermodynamic laws as part of my interpretation over the recent events.

The atmosphere has reached a tipping point in absorbing energy at mid latitudes and the constant contact of warm masses of air with those from polar latitudes has worn off the strength of the Polar Jet Stream.

Such circumstance has allowed the atmosphere to spread the energy carried by water vapour from mid latitudes into northern latitudes, being able of holding more energy than before since it is not dissipated into their surroundings when moving across latitudes.

As a whole, the research here presented points to a new scenario in atmospheric dynamics in which the Arctic circulation, previously isolated from Subtropical influence by the Polar Jet Stream, has become open to be involved in the atmospheric dynamics for the Pacific and Atlantic basins. This new interconnection will affect the atmospheric dynamics around the whole North Hemisphere. But also, by being our atmosphere a close system, subsidiary, such alteration would also affect dynamics at the Equator and due to symmetric compensation between Hemispheres, also into the South Hemisphere. As it has been pointed out previously, the presence of the storm Alex hovering over the Atlantic for over a week in the middle of January (IR Figure zone C), the tropical storm Pali reaching the equator (IR Figure zone B), rain reaching Arctic latitudes and floods instead of snow in UK and Sweden in December, suggest that the approach followed in this theory is able to unify all those events in this line of research.

Ultimately, even the gravitational forces exerting their influence over the volumes of water vapour incorporated in the atmosphere, would play a role with unknown consequences.

Climate As A Consequence

As environmental Biologist myself, I understand our climate as the consequence from the relationship existent between biotic and none biotic components through the gaseous medium we call the atmosphere. Such approach looks into, not only the inert components of the whole system, but also, the canvas to be fulfilled with knowledge over the mechanisms linking environmental performance and atmospheric composition through the synergistic relationship existing between biotic and none biotic components.

I have been studying Environmental synergies since 1995, with an specific involvement in atmospheric dynamics since 2002. From 2013, for over two years I have focused my attention into studying the mechanisms behind atmospheric dynamics involved in composing the complex system of weather patterns which sustain our climate. I have even developed a theoretical approach to understand new developments, and I believe that I have offered grounded evidence to support that the biological performance of our ecosystems are directly involved in two ways: by affecting the composition of the atmosphere and the thermodynamic behaviour of it (particulate matter and gaseous compounds) as well as by interacting in the energy budget of the planet either directly through biochemical processes or indirectly through physical processes related with albedo and soil weathering. One example of such interaction can be observed throughout the whole year in the atmospheric circulation above the Amazons. (more here)

Considering those concepts altogether, biological systems would play the role of a rudder for a ship in the middle of the sea. It is not the strength of a single force what dominates the global system but the management of those forces what it makes the difference. And all of that it is happening in the atmosphere and on the ground through land cover and use (more here).

#research #climate #diegofdezsevilla


Following the current line of study we are witnessing the evolution of a climatic regime reacting to pressures defining a calendar in a chain reaction following phases.

We are in the fourth phase “heat into motion”, before the next.
In the analysis of the atmospheric circulation presented in this line of research, in the publication from September 8, 2015 titled A Climate “Between Waters” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) some relevant aspects already identified throughout 2019 were already discussed.

The Current publication

is an extension of previous work.

See overall conclusions at the publication Final Review in Progress. March 2017. From ENSO to Scientific Thinking by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD (Posted on March 23, 2017) and full index with the state of the research and previous analyses (and DOIs) at Framework and Timeline page.


Seasonal transitions “were” characterised by the change in angle of planet’s tilt where the temperatures measured at the different latitudes varied following a gradient with respect to the distance from the part of the planet with the highest angle of solar radiation. That was based on Stefan-Boltzman calculations and under stable compartmentalisation of the atmosphere by a thermal zonification in circulation. Once such zonification in circulation gets broken, new set of variations raise dominating seasonal transitions.


Consistency makes the difference between luck and understanding. There is a big difference between I didn´t see it, and I didn´t see it “coming”. What we have to change is the mentality about what we do not see and what we do not see it “coming”.
“(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 19) and yet, I would look at the transition from previous years and I offer the same conclusions as the ones I have published since the beginning of the present line of research back in 2013. 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, in altitude and latitude. This situation is highlighted by the publications seen in the “timeline” for January 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, ..
Look for “seasonality” (use “ctrl+F”) at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com

#diegofdezsevilla
#climatechange


Each time a weather event occurs makes the news. But in order to make the news has to be different, new? Apart from the timing, it doesnot seem to be the case in many weather events occurring this winter, and I would say in the recent years. Same patterns seem to be repeating in the Pacific and Atlantic basins.The reason behind such contrasts can be assessed in different ways. We can claim that it is result of a weak Polar Jet Stream allowing polar masses of air breaking into low latitudes. We can also blame it to trans-longitudinal movements of polar masses of air coming from the West into the East which trigger pronounced Rossby Waves and the development of strong fronts and troughs bringing cold weather. One way or another, my assessment is that we have seen one after another displacements of cold air from the Arctic due convective forcing from warmer masses of air getting into high latitudes and altitudes. And based on my previous assessments over the configuration of the Polar Jet Stream, Polar vortex, Pacific and Atlantic circulation combined altogether across the Arctic, I presume that these events of masses of air crossing latitudes will be prolonged in time through spring.


Are you aware of any major floods in Europe? “Very often we get trapped under the latest developments and there is a tendency to replace old information with new, more exuberant news. This constant replacement of “old” information with “new” alters the perception of linearity since it cuts any continuous momentum by generating a sense of seeing the new, the most recent as the more important and the focus of all attention.

I want to add some perspective here, with this article, over the significance of the events generating floods over Western Europe between December and January 2015/16. In order to asses the implications of such phenomena it is important to consider the inertial momentum that we are living in the developments of our atmospheric weather events, from considering each one independently to a continuous whole.” (Originally published January 13, 2016. Update 6th Feb 2019 with addendum. see more at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress com)

January 13, 2016. Atmospheric Dynamics And Shapes (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35973.65765

diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com  #flood #diegofdezsevilla


Climate and Weather Patterns “In Transition” by Diego Fdez Sevilla PhD
YouTube 3 nov. 2017
In the line of research that I have developed and presented since 2013 I have tried to offer an innovative approach into climatic studies, but also, to develop new ways of making visual representations accompanying my analyses. Among those there are 3Dgraphics and animations, and presentations in video format at youtube. I have even included some music from my own making in some of them (you can always mute it). Following presentation showcase key conclusions reached throughout the present study and example of foreseen dynamics at NH as part of an increasingly frequent global pattern

More Animations at youtube channel

Full line of research with 200+ analyses at

Articles related:

In order to become aware of the position played by the line of research here presented among the official state of knowledge, the reader should see the update by the NSIDC in contrast with mentioned publications. At least three years lag between assessment and acceptance, yet to be defined acknowledgement.

I would like to invite you all to explore the whole line of research undergoing since 2013.

By following the links embedded I pretend to broaden the significance of each phrase and idea as part of the debate.

The challenge in scientific assessments does not come just from being able to supply ideas or data which explains current developments, there are also geopolitical debates and clashes which shift the shape of what we call state of knowledge.

The question which underlies my research is, what if I am right even when peers in my line of research do not want to acknowledge it?

https://diegofdezsevilla.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/email-exchange-diego-fdez-sevilla-research-jennifer-francis1.png

And if my assessments are right, how much lag is actually carrying the state of knowledge offered in corporative publishing media in relation with the pace at which things are happening?

Also relevant in this publication: EGU conference. Is open science the way t 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) https://lnkd.in/e89qv_Z


About this Project:


This project published in a blog format, offers pieces of original research in environmental science, and a space for discussion, based on considering as a major factor limiting our understandings the lack of attention given to the gaps of knowledge existent. The concepts, measurements and parameters applied to address environmental synergistic interactions are too narrow and isolated from each other to understand their full meaning. Such circumstance induce to reach dogmatic patterns of thought to make the quickest conclusions in the absence of a better and clear idea describing what is happening.

In this Project I aim to address those limitations using observational analyses offering assessments over real time events considering those as proxies of significant value to make interpretations over global synergistic relationships.

Feedback is always welcome here and at my email d.fdezsevilla(at)gmail.com

Since 2002 I have performed research over the Atmospheric Dynamics interacting with the biota in the field of Aerobiology (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 and in Oct 2014 I published what I believe to be a valid theory explaining current developments in atmospheric dynamics. I shared my thoughts at my blog and several groups in LinkedIn (like the AGU, NASA and NOA groups) where the immense response offered has been silence.

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

“The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research. It is an exciting and active new direction in research, though, so I encourage you to pursue it. To get funding or a job in this field, however, will require a deeper understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics (not just suggestive examples and anecdotal evidence), and statements supported by published (or your ownanalysis.”

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

“I just want to thank you for giving me a chance and read my ideas. What I wrote was after reading that Cohen proposed that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Artic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Artic Amplification in atm heat absorption. I believe that all of that is a consequence and not the trigger. That is a symptom and not the cause. My theory tries to find common ground to explain the cause leading to 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. Still today, 2019, the majority of the response is silence despite the amount of visits identified by all the SEO tools and the interactions and shares accounted for individual visits and Institutions (see tab in the right side of the blog and the stats below and open image in new tab for full size options).

So I thank your open feedback and share.


“Filling in and Finding Out Gaps of Knowledge”


In  AUGUST 2014Cohen et al, published a review over the state of knowledge on Climatic Assessments: “Review Article: Recent Arctic amplification and extreme mid-latitude weather.” Nature Geoscience volume 7pages 627–637 (2014) (DOI:10.1038/NGEO2234).
“The theory that Arctic amplification is resulting in a slower zonal jet, increased meridional flow, amplified waves and more persistent extreme weather has received a lot of attention from the media, policymakers and climate scientists. In part due to the high profile, this hypothesis has been scrutinized in the scientific literature more extensively than other hypotheses linking Arctic climate change to mid-latitude weather. However, it is worth noting that other studies on related topics, especially other studies on related topics, especially other observational studies, share some of the same shortcomingslack of statistical significance, causality unclear, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and so on”.

Between 2014 and 2016 I shared analyses over real time developments in order to validate the hypothesis behind the conclusions offered in 2013. After 2016 I incorporated the process of validating those against time by re-publishing them in contrast with the developments seen in the following years. For the Winter 17-18 I actually have re-published previous assessments with a month or two prior to the period of time addressed in order to evaluate its potential representing a pattern.

In Feb 2017, the line of research presented in this blog reached a final stage in which its framework has demonstrated to hold and support the theoretical approach behind the study bringing original and innovative insights into the state of knowledge addressing environmental synergies by “Filling in and Finding out gaps of knowledge”.

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

Theories have been formulated to explainpredict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions.

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
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
February 10, 2015 Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. ResearchgateDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1
October 21, 2015 Discussing Climatic Teleconnections. Follow Up On My Previous Research (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2962.7605
January 20, 2017 Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25016.96007
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

Numerous Follow-ups over previous assessments have been published contrasting their validity against real-time developments (in the timeline section below use ctrl+F: “follow-up”) challenging and legitimizing the conclusions offered:

  • Models confuse the science in which those are applied. Factions opposed in views will not come together by using models. And even there is no need for it. Darwin did not need an algorithm and a model to identify genetic evolution. The observational evidence was so strong that unified the scientific community. And evolution is a process comparable with climate, reacts to pressures.
“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 May 15, 2014
Debating Climate, Environment and Planetary evolution. Define your position. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  ResearchGate DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.27332.73603 October 2, 2014
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 June 26, 2015
March 10, 2017 Modelling the “Model” and the Observer (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17558.04169
February 6, 2018 Feb 2018. Climate Drifts and The Scientific Method of Waiting 30 Years. Follow up on previous assessments by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18823.09122
  • 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.
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
  • 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
  • Anthropogenic transformations over the structure and composition of the three phases of the environment (Gaseous-Atmosphere, Solid- Land Use and Cover, Liquid-Water bodies) have reduced CxHxOx and increased CxOx+HxOx, CxHx, as well as albedo, … altering the energetic balance in the thermodynamic system which conforms our Climatic regimes.
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
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32238.10566
May 26, 2017 The CO2 Greening Effect Review. CO2 Makes Headlines To Grow Like Trees, Shaping Different Forests Offering Different Views (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16286.33601
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

You can look at the whole project (more than 200 analyses published between 2013 and 2018) published at https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com and also you will find some of those publications with a DOI in my profile at ResearchGate

Framework

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 addressing variations in the gradients of energy found in the atmosphere.

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 Oceansthe carrier has to be in the atmosphere in order for the energy to produce work. And the body loosing heat cools down.

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 it was 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.

(see ref- Statistical Significance. The Scary Side of Being Mild (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21934.61767

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.(ref)

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.”

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 (hurricanes, typhoons, …) 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, 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.

Biological productivity amazonia atmmospheric circulation DiegoFdezSevilla

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.

It can not surprise me enough the fact that there is a scientific agreement followed by theories such the Arctic Amplification and Stephan Boltzmann black body radiation, which focus on single locations as sources of energy triggering warming events. Arctic amplification focus the attention in the Arctic, and the absence of ice decreasing albedo, to justify the location for the source of energy warming the atmosphere in the Sea Surface Waters. And it does it even considering the absence of Solar radiation, which in itself discards any process of albedo absorbing and re-emitting energy. Accordingly with their theory, Arctic amplification suggests that Arctic circulation affects circulation at mid-latitudes, however, all the dynamics we see point in the opposite direction. Mid latitudinal forcing pushes against Arctic restrictions through the Jet Stream, displacing cold masses of air in their path, using water vapour as the carrier of the energy feeding convective motions.

Animations from previous publications:

Stephan Boltzmann relation describing radiative gradients of temperature rely entirely on an idealized body homogeneous in composition and even pressure. Such statement neglects the nature of the processes involved in the transference of energy found in the atmosphere where there are simultaneously three states of matter, gaseous, liquid and solid, numerous compounds different in molecular composition and behaviour, as well as an active thermodynamic system made of heterogeneous cells containing independent microsystems of entropy, interacting in a macro system out from equilibrium. (more here).

So opposite from a black body, the distribution of radiation and heat across anheterogeneous system delivers an uneven distribution marked by the nature of the connections built between micro and macro systems, ecosystems and abiotic systems, gaseous, liquid, solid and multi-estate systems. It becomes evident that there is not a distribution of temperatures following a gradient defined by Stephan-Boltzmann estimations because the transference of energy is heterogeneous due to the heterogeneous composition and disposition of the matter states in the planetary system. By understanding those limitations we can identify the expansionof energetic pulses throughout the atmosphere avoiding focusing the attention over the temperatures and instead, focusing the attention into identifying the “work” expressed by the dynamics in motion, either as forms of precipitation, trans-latitudinal transportation of matter (Water Vapour), transference of radiation (SSW), discharges of electricity and displacements of cold and heat waves.

In my research 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.

biological-productivity_amazonia-and-atmospheric-circulation-diego-fdezsevilla

 

Biological productivity amazonia atmmospheric circulation DiegoFdezSevilla

Land use change Compilation by Diego FdezSevilla Publication Domesticating Nature

We have to consider 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 heatcarried out in the atmosphere which fuels convective dynamics dominating intrusions over the Arctic.

Among those analyses published in my line of research some time ago studying the impact from changes in Land cover over atmospheric dynamics:

  • April 23, 2015 Matching Features Between Land Surface and Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20035.30247. https://wp.me/p403AM-xK
  • June 10, 2016 The Butterfly Effect on Arctic Circulation. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) https://wp.me/p403AM-12H

__________________

Discussion


There have been some assessments showing major discrepancies between the line of research presented here and main stream scientific coverage. The assessments are about the concept of climate driftthe link between the Polar Vortex and tropospheric circulation, the role played by SST and the ENSO, the dynamics explaining abnormal Arctic Warming and sea ice cover,  the synergistic implications from the biotic component and the scientific methodology applied.

Polar Vortex

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 PhD)  Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488
October 25, 2016 Another Heat Wave Another Polar Vortex II … Broken (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, Ph.D.) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13418.93124

Climate Drift

October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440
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. ResearchgateDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1
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.)
February 6, 2018 Feb 2018. Climate Drifts and The Scientific Method of Waiting 30 Years. Follow up on previous assessments by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18823.09122

Arctic Amplification

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

SST and ENSO

October 16, 2015 SST Anomalies and Heat Waves. Are They Not All Just Heat Displacements? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23741.05608
December 11, 2015 Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3238.2801
March 22, 2016 Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)  Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1968.5521
June 23, 2017 “Seasonal Outlook. June 2017 (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25428.91528

The Biotic Synergy

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) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10771.99363
May 7, 2015 Domesticating Nature. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Rsearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36812.51848
April 22, 2016 Plant an Idea and Then a Tree… But Which Ones? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)  Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3977.0489
March 3, 2017 Thermodynamic Ecosystems by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD  ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32238.10566
May 26, 2017 Review. CO2 Makes Headlines To Grow Like Trees, Shaping Different Forests Offering Different Views (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16286.33601

The Scientific Method

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 June 26, 2015
Atmospheric Circulation and Climate Drift. Are we there yet? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) July 2, 2015
March 10, 2017 Modelling the “Model” and the Observer (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17558.04169
February 6, 2018 Feb 2018. Climate Drifts and The Scientific Method of Waiting 30 Years. Follow up on previous assessments by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Pdf at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18823.09122

Teleconnections

January 20, 2017 Climate and Indexes. A dashboard of Confusion. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25016.96007
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

In the line of research presented in this blog it has been discussed the impact over energy flows derived from solar activity, land use and surface, atmospheric composition of GHGs and aerosols as well as the water cycle.

Based on the previous observations and assessments presented in this line of research, the state of the stratospheric circulation at both poles suggest that there is no need to have sudden warming process at stratospheric level in order to have a broken polar vortex. Such scenario was observed in October 2016 by the configuration of the polar vortex split at the NH without a stratospheric localised strong warming meanwhile the South pole was suffering a Sudden stratospheric warming without splitting the polar vortex.

But also, neither is required a broken polar Vortex in order to have displacements of cold polar masses of air into lower latitudes. Such configuration comes from the convective forcing triggered at lower altitudes by warm masses of air moving towards the poles in latitude and altitude.

 

A process of convection and advection moving warm masses of air towards the poles displacing cold masses of air in their way moving into Arctic circulation.

This behaviour can be explained by considering the thermal properties of the atmosphere as a system capable of carrying energy across higher latitudes and altitudes without dissipation and in enough concentration to affect the configuration of the polar vortex from the bottom up. Such capacity to keep momentum across latitudes and altitude conserving thermal energy can only be explained by an enhancement in the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which are directly related with its composition.

Throughout my line of research I suggest that there is one approach which is able to unify all events in a single principle. The incorporation of energy into the atmosphere is shaping the atmospheric dynamics we see affecting the behaviour of currents, storms, rain rates, lightning events, wind regimes and temperature variations.

The atmosphere might have trespassed a tipping point absorbing energy making to tremble its previous structural configuration in Latitude and Altitude.

The constant contact of warm masses of air from Low and Mid-Latitudes with those from polar latitudes has worn off the strength of the Polar Jet Stream. Such circumstance has allowed the intrusion of warm masses of air into higher latitudes and altitudes, increasing atmospheric mixing dynamics. These convective intrusions are fuelled by the energy carried within water vapour, inducing the displacements  of other colder masses of air in altitude and latitude, increasing the mixing ratio between otherwise compartmentalized parts of the atmosphere.

Such circumstance has allowed the atmosphere to spread the energy carried by water vapour from Mid Latitudes into Polar Latitudes (Arctic latitudes), being able of holding more energy than before since it is not dissipated into their surroundings when moving across latitudes.

If rain at the deserts would be a strong indicator of something changing, increasing “rain” instead of snow at higher latitudes would have a post-effect over the atmospheric circulation, and generate feedback loops.

This scenario has induced a trans-Arctic interconnectivity between oceanic basins which has happened with and without the need for a strong sign of the ENSO. Therefore, this would suggest that exchange of masses of air between the Mid low latitudes with the Arctic, through the Polar Jet Stream, is the dominant driver in atmospheric circulation defining the behaviour of equatorial winds. But also, the configuration of the NH Polar Vortex.

Altogether the research here presented points to a new scenario in atmospheric dynamics in which the Arctic circulation, previously isolated from Subtropical influence by the Polar Jet Stream, has become open to be involved in the atmospheric dynamics for the Pacific and Atlantic basins. This new interconnection will affect the atmospheric dynamics around the whole North Hemisphere. But also, by being our atmosphere a close system, subsidiary, such alteration would affect dynamics at the Equator and due to symmetric compensation between Hemispheres, moreover into the Southern Hemisphere.

___________________________

The Anthropogenic Link


As a biologist myself I find intriguing to see that our environment is predominately not described in biological terms.

Einstein made it very clear, our environment is a relative proportion of free energy and fixed energy in mass. There is one process in our system fixing E into mass, and one releasing E from mass. The “relative efficiency” of both processes is what is defining the behaviour of our thermodynamic environment.

There is an interference from human activities changing the composition and structure of the three phases of the environment:

  • solid; land cover and use affects albedo and changes in evapotranspiration rates due to biotic disruptions on wild population functionality,
  • the liquid phase through alterations over the water cycles, distribution of water bodies, and humidity of soils as well as affecting circulation patterns due to coastal deterioration and deformation, but also, indirectly due to alterations in the composition of the inert and biotic matter in the Oceans due to pollution and modifications in acidification and salinity related with atmospheric composition and thermal properties.
  • and gaseous phase due to alterations in the composition of the atmosphere from GHGs as well as aerosols, altogether affecting its thermodynamic behaviour.

The deviation from equilibrium of those conditions disrupt the perpetuation of an established symbiotic relationship between biotic and none biotic components in the micro and macro ecosystem.

The definitive link between human activities and atmospheric dynamics is under constant discussionsince climatic developments are mainly approached from the field of physics.

However, the direct link between Anthropogenic activities and climatic developments are found in biological terms with thermodynamic implications:

Human activity has reduced CxHxOx compounds and increased free CxOx+HxOx.

Furthermore, anthropogenic activities release Energyfrom breaking structures (C-C) while biochemical processes assimilate energy fixing it into stable structures (CxHxOx).

Anthropogenic activity is simultaneously, releasing energy from a biochemically fixed state into the Planetary System’s Pool, at the same time that, it adds thermoactice compounds as CO2 and H2O. But furthermore, through this activity of constant transformational and processing, human activities are also debilitating the functionality of the biochemical processes capable of absorbing such perturbation, the endogenous ecosystems.

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

________Conclusions_________

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

The mere identification of seeing: numbers of trees decreased over 46% from wild ecosystems being affected through time due to agriculture, increased levels of urbanization, deforestation, same for soil degradation, decrease in O2 conc, and an increase in GHG, can not be left out of the equation when considering what it is and what it is not “natural variability”, and the future expected for our thermodynamic planetary system.

Our planet is getting fat on GHG, lacking O2, space to grow natural ecosystems and capacity to fix and store energy. Biology integrates all components in an ecosystem, yet it is missing in climatology assessments.

The main conclusion from the present study 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. (pdf Registered at ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18509.13289)

Our Planet is made from the combination of all the organisms in a given area and the abiotic elements which affect them. 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. There is an underestimated synergistic relationship between biogeochemical energy flows and those identified in weather patterns and atmospheric dynamics. For too many years it has been considered that the Earth is a garden populated by “elements” offering colourful pleasure and comfort. In fact, the biochemical processes undertaken by our ecosystems function as the most advanced piece of technology known by Humans, responsible for the quality of our air, waters and soils, as much as the sole and unique mechanism capable of interacting with the thermodynamic pressure imposed by the constant exposure of the planet to Sun’s radiation. Until we see the real function of biological processes as climate regulators we will not realise in how much trouble we are.

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. 

_____________________________________________________

________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. (see related analysis)

Examples of processes releasing ENERGY FROM ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES

From previous publication “Domesticating Nature” (2015)

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.


_____________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?.

The line of research presented in this blog describes a scenario where things happen for a reason, and where there are reasons for things to happen. No model offers that much. Meanwhile “reasons” explain probabilities, models use “probabilities” to let you figure out the reasons.

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:

___________________________________________________

________2019 Research FOLLOW-UP ___________

In research what it is relevant it is not always what it is New, but what it doesn´t get old. One stage of research comes when looking into offering something New; New data, New interpretations, New methods, making “the News”, being the First … And then, once the “New” has been offered, it is all about confirmation, re-evaluation, validation, review and application. In my line of research, at one stage I have offered New interpretations on climatic developments adopting New points of view addressing New synergistic interactions delivering New Conclusions and Implications in weather patterns, atmospheric circulation and biotic performance. In a following stage I have re-shared all those previous “New assessments” to be contrasted against real time developments been unfolded in the next years. In 2014 I was told by a lead scientist in climatic developments Prof. Jennifer Francis: “The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research.” I was challenged for a deeper understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and analyses supporting my statements.

Revisiting the theory of “Facing a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in atmospheric circulation” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla. Reply to Prof. Jennifer Francis (February 2015) ResearchgateDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1

After 200+ analyses 2014-18, have I done enough?diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com

This year 2018/19 the progression of the climatic dynamics seen show to support the conclusions discussed throughout all the analyses performed in the line of research presented in this blog:

  •  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 circulation 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 activityare 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 covertransformations 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 statecapable 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.

Throughut the Winter 2019, cold “and warm” dynamics at tropospheric and stratospheric levels have happened simultaneously. And if there is a progression it comes by seeing through the seasons warm temperatures moving north followed by a stratospheric Warming process which promotes a weak Polar Vortex configuration.

Despite all the theories available my interpretation is simple about what is happening, between global warming and global cooling we are living under a process of global mixing, promoted by an increase in the atmospheric energy pool, using water vapour as the carrier of such energetic extra thanks to an enhanced thermal capacity generated from increasing GHGs, Albedo and Aerosols. The origin of this imbalance in the energetic pool driving the thermodynamic system can be associated with changes in the composition, structure, location and concentration of the components integrating the Planetary system. Human activities can be associated with all those changes.

 

Web Analytics
Clicky

About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

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

2 Responses to In Science Worst Than Using Beliefs to Make Decisions, Is Doing It and Not to Be Aware of It. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

  1. wanda ottes says:

    Always interesting to read your items, though I do not understand everything, or sometimes nothing at all. Nonetheless I learn a lot, thanks for that. Concerning the “Science” quotes, I never believe in the science I use…I just know facts and how they work, but still follow the master of the
    theory I use by saying, “do not stop exploring and researching, because we never know thing for 100% and nothing is perfect….and never do belief, but be sure about the facts”.
    I rather would use the words “I think it could be…..”. As a scientist I do not believe in anything..

    Liked by 1 person

    • Based on my previous experience behind all the analyses presented in my line of research since 2013 I have focused my attention in a primordial aspect: – what makes sense with the data that we have?
      Because I do not want to believe that any data offered to me represents what somebody thinks. What I want is to understand what is it that generates the data.
      And I can only be amazed by seeing so many attempts by “deniers and supporters of climate change”.

      The fact is that many users of data believe in what they see in their data sets but lack many responses about how many outliers have left outside in the process, or what affects their values, or even if a X-Y correlation is synchronicity, correlation or causation. Like temperature and ice. Both are correlated since temperature can melt ice and ice melting can drop surrounding temperature. But which one goes into X or Y axis?. Actually, you can even have both in the same axis since an external source of heat it would increase temperature and melt ice at the same time. And vice versa.

      We have reached a point in which many discussions based on data are actually using beliefs even without being aware of it.
      One example I see comes with the ENSO. It is accepted that El Niño is responsible for many meteorological events. So when the conditions of el Niño are met, we see plenty of publications and opinions explaining everything based on El Niño. However, when there are not El Niño conditions, the number of opinions and explanations offered in the media offering explanations for similar meteorological events (floods, heat waves, …) disappear. At the end, El Niño is used to justify an understanding that avoids the fundamental basis of knowing what triggers the so called El Niño. And furthermore, if we consider that the atmospheric circulation is changing, and that El Niño is a change in atmospheric conditions, all previous atmospheric conditions standardized to define El Niño will be affected by the new conditions in atmospheric circulation.
      So, if El Niño only happens once in a while, and scientists only rely on El Niño to offer an explanation (without knowing what generates El Niño), the science behind such posture actually is based on believing blindly in “an echo” taking for granted a form of knowledge which is actually missing.
      That is why I have written several analyses on this subject.
      December 11, 2015 Could It Be El Niño The New “Wolf” Coming? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla) Researchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3238.2801
      March 22, 2016 Pacific atmospheric dynamics with and without a positive ENSO (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD) Reasearchgate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1968.5521

      But also there are other “beliefs” in science which are completely dismissing basic and primordial questions. And that is why I have analysed and discussed the discrepancies that I have found in my research when compared with mainstream.
      Another example is the Theory of Arctic Amplification which begun as a mere observation (temperature at the Arctic is increasing faster than at lower latitudes) and became a theory without a coherent explanation (?). Such theory is applying the idea f that the Arctic is warming on its own, and that affects meteorological conditions at mid-latitudes.
      We can only understand such posture solely based on looking at data sets without an effort to make sense out of it. Such interpretation is taking the X and Y axis for two variables and nothing more.
      First it was said that early snowfall in Asia was the trigger for the increases in temperature. After that it was proposed that the solar radiation absorbed by Sea surface waters at the Arctic through the summer inhibited the absence of ice in winter at the same time that released heat into the atmosphere triggering warmer than normal temperatures. So, this interpretation is considering that when the Sun disappears in the Arctic the water is so warm that it can keep liquid, avoiding freezing, for weeks or months, whilst at the same time it releases heat into the atmosphere. If anyone thinks about it, that posture is considering that water is dictating the temperature of the room. The percentage of Sea Water in liquid form at the Arctic in Early Winter is comparable with a bucket of water in your room. So following such theory, you would warm up a room with a bucket of water.
      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
      March 15, 2019 Misleading Concepts in Arctic Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD)

      I am trying to call the attention of those calling for facts, over “the fact” that many scientific arguments are based on postures which without knowing it, “belief” in some interpretations formulated based on data that no one seems to care about how it is generated.

      That also apply when considering that the state of the Planet can be measured by comparing today’s records with previous time scales. The NAO, MJD, … CO2 conc, water vapour, …. We are trying to match the effect of each parameter between thousand years ago with current times. It is like considering that because when you were 20 years old you could run for hours in a flat terrain, in order to do it again being 50 years old you just need for the terrain to be flat.
      The composition and structure of our ecosystems have changed so much that the effect of any variable over the current composition is nothing we can find in the records from previous eras.

      Liked by 1 person

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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