Playing “The Voice” on Climate. Blind Auditions. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
Would we have a different state of knowledge if that was made out of blind auditions for the assessments presented instead of based on publications with “a Name (Institutional and Personal)”? Is it overrating the value of the message the weight of the messengers in the debate on Climate?
CV english and español. Resume. Interdisciplinary 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.
I might not be 16 years old any more, or have a renown Name or even a powerful academic record but I also have something to say.
The question is, do you need to know me in order to judge my message?
I would like to make a contribution with my comments through my acticity at LinkedIn, offering my thoughts in the topic of Climate and Industry. I also show the links referring to the places where I have intervened broadening the sources for any audience interested.
Nov2018.- Bill Gates Wall at LinkedIN (It’s Time for Environmentalists and the Energy Industry to Work Together)(https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6464242251542392832):
(Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) “Science has evolved enough to tackle all the relevant environmental question, the problem lies in the lack of synchronicity with the state of evolution for politics and economy. We are still following the same schemes in political and economic approaches as the time of lets say, the Romans. It is like seeking solutions for the problems found at fifty years of age from a teenager. It can not be assumed that to resolve the impact from an industrial revolution the answer is to make an industrial revolution. It seems that there is nothing learnt being applied.”
Oct 2018.- Adela Penas‘s wall LinkedIn. ¿Conseguirán las renovables tener por fin un marco estable? https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6459122904708771840
Estamos en una situación a la que hemos llegado derivada del impacto sufrido por una revolución industrial basada en “el pan para hoy””. Ahora, todo lo que se esta hablando es sobre hacer una revolución industrial para solucionar los problemas de una revolución industrial. Soy una persona con un profundo sentido analítico y solo se me ocurre una frase para describir lo que veo. “”No podemos resolver problemas usando el mismo tipo de pensamiento que usamos cuando los creamos. Albert Einstein”. Hoy en día existe una infraestructura, y desmantelarla simultáneamente con crear otra, es un pensamiento continuista de una mentalidad de mercado consumista basada en: “cuando se estropea compra otro”.
Lo que se debería primar es una transición hacia la eficiencia de los recursos actuales como forma de cambio hacia un desarrollo con un impacto minimizado. Si no, pagaremos el impacto de desmantelar sin eficiencia, y crear a la vez un sistema ineficiente. Dos sistemas a la vez duplicarán el consumo de recursos y el impacto de sus tratamientos. Actualmente, con la fiebre del concepto “eléctrico” estamos al borde de duplicar infraestructuras, una obsoleta y una nueva, sin asumir la duplicidad del impacto generado y los costes. Si ha alguien le interesa puede leer uno de mis análisis en el siguiente artículo. (Climate. CO2, Technology and Free Energy. Discussion Review on previous research by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhDM May 2017D DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.16286.33601)
January 2018.- NASA LinkedIn Wall .-Watch as we fire up a real rocket engine! Join us live at 4 p.m. EST as we test one of the four RS-25 engines that will power our Space Launch System rocket on future deep space missions. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6359127790062751744
You know, if you would have channelled the push from the engine exhaust into “couple” of turbines you could actually recycle the energy released/wasted and recover a pretty decent amount of energy into electricity which you could use, for example, into the industrial process required to produce the fuel used for your engine. Similar spectacular images are generated in many dams … just and idea. If you like this one there are more in the brain where this one comes from. I don´t have any curiosity of being myself in space but I understand the functional application of having a different point view. However, it would be a shame trying to understand the world by swapping a microscope for a telescope if the problem is our sight.
April 2017. Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s PhD Wall at LinekdIn. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6262342479866003456
As part of the follow-up which I apply in my research I use real-time developments to validate previous assessments through time. Through the coming week 24April 2017, we will see a cold front coming from the Arctic into low latitudes over the European continent. Here I want to share an assessment from last February 2016 from my research in order to expose it for open judgement and review considering the similarities and implications assessing climatic drifts. Feedback is welcome as always.
- Publication shared: February 25, 2016 Feb 2016. Forecasts For Ecosystems (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) ReasearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36832.17925
At some point in time, technology begun its path with the function of helping to answer relevant questions. Then technology increased its relevance in order to implement the conclusions adopted from answering those questions. That happened in periods of peace and later the process speeded up in periods of war.
Lets look at the industrialization of the human society and the implementation of technology in social routines. The aim for the technology created and the industrial infrastructure created around it has the only objective of self preservation. Meanwhile developed countries rely on economic consumption, underdeveloped countries on strengthening their economies. Everybody needs production and resources. Western countries sell technology for eastern cheap production and labour. Meanwhile, everybody waste resources. We waste more than we consume, energy efficiency is not profitable, nothing is built to last any more and food is thrown away just to control the prices in the markets. If the truth of things interferes with the preservation of some machinery it generates discomfort. Like publishing science without producing revenues to publishers …
Technology is not the problem, it is the aim with which it is developed
From an environmental assessment we can consider to “restore” the conditions which accompanied previous climatic periods “or” we can create solutions out of a hat. What it calls my attention, and amaze me, is the mind set which instead of recognising restoration of functions, it sees as a brilliant option the investment on trying to fix an oil leak in an engine by creating a technology which add more oil into the engine in order to not let it dry out, and more technology to clean up the oil spill outside the engine. Of course, the technology applied to create and manufacture the new one will be based on engines which will have oil leaks justifying the demand for more technology to mitigate the impact form the leaks. We have two options, either we restore the efficiency of the systems linked synergistically with our climatic developments (soil, water and atmosphere) or our specie will become dependant for life upon technology and the restrictions associated with the availability of resources required to develop it, update it, run it and maintain it.
Studies looking at previous palaeoclimatic regimes are only able to register the presence or absence of limited number of variables. The measurements are also limited in quality and quantity due to the nature of the conservation of the samples examined. Yet, the variations in conc of O18, or CO2 contained at ice cores, the biological activity recorded from fossils, pollen, tree rings, … just reflect how dynamic our environment is and how strong was the resilience of our global system to recover from the variability part of evolution. Ultimately, our global system has proved to be strong enough to be resilient against changes in previous-past conditions based on achieving a state of thermodynamic equilibrium since biological systems allowed the conc of Oxygen to reach concentrations suitable for water vapour to spread inland. Thought strong, our global system is also sensible and reactive to changes and pressures.
Previous changes in climatic variables have shown changes following gradients in latitude due to variations in planetary configuration (Tilt, precession, …). My research points to a climatic drift braking gradients in temperature and atmospheric circulation due to an increase in kinetic forcing
The situation of performing research on the topic of environmental behaviour and climatic instability is proving to be a challenge beyond scientific limitations. Many postures can be right at some extent but it seems that each opinion sharing some bright of truth generates an effect of taking sides against others. An apple can be green, red, … can be big, small, … round, elongated, … sweet, sour, …
Based on my knowledge studying Environmental dynamics since in 1995 I begun my University studies, A PhD in Aerobiology and following research in Climatic patterns since 2013, my assessment over the current situation is defined in a simple principle: climatic drifts are due to variations in pre-established energy flows overwhelming the system´s resilience but within the margins to recover previous equilibrium from extreme oscillations.
Variations in climatic regimes have happened in the past due to different reasons, thus, demonstrating that climatic drifts can be triggered by different type of forcing and sources; internal like changes in biological performance, volcanic, affecting CO2 to O2, and external like radiation due to planetary tilt. So, knowing that our planetary system is sensible to variations over the energy flows triggering climatic drifts there is no question that there are more than one form to trigger those.
Studies looking at previous palaeoclimatic regimes are only able to register the presence or absence of limited number of variables. The measurements are also limited in quality and quantity due to the nature of the conservation of the samples examined. Yet, the variations in conc of O18, or CO2 contained at ice cores, the biological activity recorded from fossils, pollen, tree rings, … just reflect how dynamic our environment is and how strong was the resilience of our global system to recover from the variability part of evolution. Ultimately, our global system has proved to be strong enough to be resilient against changes in previous-past conditions based on achieving a state of thermodynamic equilibrium since biological systems allowed the conc of Oxigen to reach concentrations suitable for water vapour to spread inland. Thought strong, our global system is also sensible and reactive to changes and pressures. Previous changes in climatic variables have shown changes following gradients in latitude due to variations in planetary configuration (Tilt, precession, …). My research points to a climatic drift braking gradients in temperature and atmospheric circulation due to an increase in kinetic forcing.
In order to obtain the increase in kinetic forcing required to displace Arctic masses of air from its position the atmosphere has to increase its capacity to gain and retain the extra kinetic energy entering the system. Such process would be well explained by the combination of an increase in GHGs. Between the GHGs relevant in the equation we have those with a low time permanence as gas /water vapour) and those with a high time permanency lapse (CO2). The increase in CO2 would allow the atmosphere to increase kinetic retention increasing the capacity of the atmosphere to capture water vapour and even extend its time permanency, in combination with aerosols acting as drop nuclei. But also, the limitation in the functional role of the biotic systems and their synergies across the globe would reduce the conc of O2 and reduce their capacity to absorb the increase of CO2 in order to retain equilibrium in the energy flows using the atmospheric path. But also, variations in albedo due to land use and cover, and the changes in soil weathering due to anthropogenic alterations. Human activity is changing the energy flows followed for the energy entering and leaving the system (atmosphere, land and Sea composition and structure / solar radiation)
December 2018 At Sean Penrith’s wall. “If, on the other hand, nations go on burning fossil fuels under the business-as-usual scenario, then by 2150 the world will be very like the early Eocene, 50 million years ago.” Earth’s Climate After 2030: Conditions Could Resemble Era 3 Million Years Ago, Scientists Predict. At: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6485558086244401152
3 million years ago, the continents were at different configuration, the land cover was completely different, soil state and biota performance was beyond any comparison, the composition of the land, water bodies and atmosphere did not contained any component reached only by anthropogenic processing as we can see in the ionization of the atmosphere and the chemical reactions which do not occur in natural habitats… there is no way that the future of a system will move backwards as the consequence of changing its composition and structure. One easy example comes by considering that never in the history of our planet, metal compounds have been at such concentration at its surface, same for many other compounds. The future is nothing we can compare with the past.
September 2018 Larry Cosgrove‘s wall. Will the hot summer of 2018 ever end? https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6441277376130215936.
“The drainage of the “”Arctic cold reservoir”” is a process which started with a timid seasonal waving on the Polar Jet Stream. This process has become more extreme by the years, begining to show as the collapse of a wall under the pressure on a tide gaining strength. Convective forcing from mid latitudes is invading the north pole forcing the displacement of cold masses into foreign territories. What began as a process marked by seasonal pulses, this year 2018 is showing to maintain momentum throughout seasons. The drainage of the Arctic reservoir showed cold blasts over locations reviving the argument of revisiting post glaciations, while the Arctic was getting anomalously warm. Then heat waves arrived and all sides got into the hothouse of comforting past predictions. Meanwhile, anomalous cold blasts arrive in August into Asia and parts of North America. These swings in the “”objective”” debate over climatic developments is moving towards a madhouse driven by a fight where the one-eyed tries to rule over the blind. Now is time for hurricane season, a localised event which in terms of atmospheric circulation is the trace left by a world wide pattern. As we speak (1st July 2018) While we look at the Equator amazed by white elephants, the Arctic is being drained by mid latitudinal intrusion over the Atlantic releasing cold atmospheric icebergs over Asia. In a simile, it is not the white trace left by a plane what it makes the noise but the plane in front moving the air. (An extended analysis can be found at: A New Pattern in Atmospheric Circulation drives towards an “unpredictable” New Climatic Scenario (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Published on October 5, 2018. In Pdf at researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31673.62567. Excerpt From this publication: Thermal amplitude regimes (difference between max and min temp in short periods of time) will increase at mid-latitudes under a new atmospheric scenario dominated by mixing patterns resultant from intrusions of mid-latitudinal masses of air into Arctic circulation.
An homogenization in the amount of energy carried in the atmosphere by water vapour would induce a decrease between gradients of energy. That would allow atmospheric events to persist in location and time due to the reduced capacity of the atmosphere to dissipate its energy.
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.)
The Voice in Climatic Debates. A Matter of Messages and Messengers.
Would we have a different state of knowledge if that was made out of blind auditions for the assessments presented instead of based on publications with “a Name (Institutional and Personal)”?
Is it overrating the value of the message the weight of the messengers in the debate on Climate, discriminating other voices based enterely on just “pedegree“?
___________About the “The Message” __________
At David McRobert’s wall. Climate Science Basics as summarized by Dr. Kimberly Nicholas.
Back in2013 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 was wrong because I do not know the agendas for those behin 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 appealling but I can ensure that it is raw and painfully honest. If I am wrong in my conclusions it is entirely the result of my own limitation. And if I am right soon enough you will see somebody claiming their credit in publications without my name. It 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
An impressive amount of reading and summarizing.. now could you give us a clue to what caused the 25 odd Ice Ages and while you are at it, what caused the 26 Dansgaard-Oeschger events or the holocene Bond events. Those are impressive temperature swings, for now without a certain explanation. If the Present can be a key to the Past (reversing a geological rule), maybe you have stumbled on something (it was a bit much to read and the subject was not standing out in the headers)..
Well, I am in enough trouble already saying that 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. So I have already plenty to chew on and I should not dig deeper. But, something in common for all previous ice ages is that none of them were an expansion in the territory for cold conditions while the center 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.
ENSO is driven by????? Clearly you are unaware of the paleoclimate studies regards ENSO. Absolutely no correlation with CO2 and ENSO! None! Nada!
Jim where do you see me saying enso correlated with CO2?
I always say to those following my work that they have to think by themselves if what I offer makes sense to them. And the reason is that I like to be surrounded by people whom can identify a mistake that I might make and help me out pointing it out to me.
Now, Jim, we have been sharing network for years. You know my work, and you know that I don´t try to indoctrinate nobody and neither I like to be manipulated as anyone of us. Also I don´t follow mainstream and that is making me pay its toll. I do not pick sides cause I do not want to be picked by sides. I defend that there is no global warming or cooling but an invigorated process of global mixing.
The energy behind this increased in work is being carried and spread by water vapour in the atmosphere thanks to its enhanced thermal capacity due to increasing concentrations of non condensible GHGs like CO2 in conjunction with an increase in albedo due to Land Cover and Use, compaction of soils, compartmentalization of water flows, and most of all, a reduction in the capacity for the biotic system to absorb perturbations. Finally industrial interests have made our societies to become used to handle obsolescence in all products to the extent of living in complete oblivion.
Jim, you have projected into my words something that I have never said, “ENSO driven by CO2”.
That is a mistake that it has made three people (at least the ones liking it) “to take for granted” that “your saying” represents a message embedded in my words, which is completely unrealistic.
I do not know how well do you handle errors, but such mistake teaches me that it is very easy to project messages into the words of others in such a way that completely modifies the original message. And that empathy between individuals can carry such distortion of the original message in an exponential level. Something which is making any debate completely impossible to become useful.
With my publications I do not try to say that I am the one to follow. I am not trying to say that I know it all about everything. I am just trying to use everything that I know. And I am asking others to tell me, about what I know, what is that they might see as wrong.
Indeed you did not say, “ENSO driven by CO2”, you only said “the ENSO is not a driver but instead it is driven by,”… Given the context of this thread, I assumed that was what you were referring to. So what were you saying ENSO is driven by?
___________About the “The Messenger” ___________
August 2018. At Jay Koh wall. “Weird ‘wind drought’ means Britain’s turbines are at a standstill” Reshared from Roberta Boscolo. Energy and Climate Science Officer at World Meteorological Organization https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6432207090076385280
Incredibly important phenomenon that requires more research so we can plan appropriately. Forecasts of wind, from 0-24 hours out through the multi-decadal time frame will have continued economic value.
Betsy, since you are part of my network I suppose that you might have heard about my research as a background noise in your wall. I do not have the name neither the support of an institution to make my words to compete with the seriousness of academia, yet, I want to share a point of view.
The first thing I offered as an assessment of broad implications in a world incorporating increasing amounts of energy in free state was that the entropy would increase.
The meaning of it is linked with many process which I have tried to slice in my publications but here I would recap two. I would expect an increase in atmospheric mixing as a wide dynamic. And yet, an increase in mixing will reduce the differentials between atmospheric gradients of energy. In all, it would force a change in zonifications for atmospheric dynamics. It will originate blocking patterns, change atmospheric corridors (e.g. across the Arctic) and, by reducing gradients of energy some areas will see stall conditions (lack of thermal contrasts generating wind) others plenty and violent conditions (Spain now) and passive drift of cold and warm masses driven by Coriolis. But, without institutional support, this is just my opinion. I hope you find some value on it.
November 2016 At
I would make a slightly different interpretation for the same conclusion. The ice cover missing is not due to a “massive heat release to the atmosphere (Arctic Amplification)” but due to an introduction of heat from mid-latitudes. The arctic snow and ice cover is lower on its rate of recovery from summer, so there is not a melt down releasing heat. The absence of “solid water” comes from the heat being transferred by intrusions of warm air. These warm intrusions are reducing the differential in energy gradients between oceanic water and atmosphere so there is not enough contrast to grow ice or to form enough snow. Since the heat can only be contained and transferred by matter, the atmosphere in the arctic containing the heat shows to carry moist from midLat instead of being dry air from Arctic circulation, and it is having an effect below its position (reducing arctic ice cover and oceanic temperatures) as well as above it, inducing the weak polar vortex. At least that is what I take from my research.
The same conclusion which I referred to is that “The door of the Arctic freezer is not closed properly. In other words, the Polar Jet Stream is too weak to keep the Arctic isolated from MiDLatitude intrusions. With such weak Polar Jet Stream configuration we are going to get “frost” all over the place. For as long as warm air gets into the Arctic the air already there will get pushed out.
Hi Diego, I think the logical steps are: 1) large areas of Arctic ocean usually cover by ice in the Summer are, in the last 10 summers, almost always ice-free 2) this big surface of ocean absorbs heat during the Summer and early Autumn season 3) during the re-freeze season (late september-mid november) these areas release into the Atmosphere over North Pole an impressive amount of heat that weakens the polar vortex 4) the weakness of the polar vortex facilitates the northward movement of warm air masses from the mid-latitutes that contribute to weaken further the polar vortex This is my thought
Thanks. I was writing about it to publish a more extended point in the blog. But in short what I am trying to highlight is the fact that the Arctic is a half full/half empty scenario. But we have to remember that cold is the absence of heat. The process of thinking you describe assumes that Arctic Amplification comes from an increase of heat being released in the Arctic. I disagree with that. The thermal energy accumulated through summer in the Arctic can not be transferred into the atmosphere if this atmosphere is Arctic Dry Air as it used to be. The heat contained by Arctic masses of air comes with the air mass in itself due to the moisture carried from Mid Laitudes. Since there is thermal heat within the mass of air, the heat absorbed by the Arctic can not transfer it to the atmosphere and freeze in the process.
I know the arguments and the data presented by those articles, also by Cohen and colleges and Jennifer Francis. and I agree with their observations but I disagree with their interpretation. When we look at sea ice melting we can consider a transference of energy, but from where to where? Where is the energy coming from to melt ice? Albedo is energy rejected from the system so this energy does not melt ice. You can not justify a decrease in ice based on a decrease in Albedo due to a decrease in ice. Which matter is absorbing and transferring heat into the ice? Ashes immersed in the ice? warmer surrounding water? atmosphere? What happens when one volume of mass transfers heat to another? It gets colder, so the atm column is warmer in surface colder in the middle and warmer again in altitude, always in relation with its surroundings.
“Increased transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting from sea ice loss” means that sea ice is melting in a process where sea ice releases heat!!! That is against any thermodynamic coherence and understanding, despite of being in peer review articles and from recognised scientists and institutions. I am sorry but I can not agree.
Diego, There are 2 ways less ice results in the release of heat. First between 100 and 900 meter depths there is an enormous amount of heat derived from relatively warm and dense inflowing Atlantic waters that could melt Arctic ice several times over. The removal of thick mulityear ice by freezing winds removed the insulating ice cover and released more of that subsurface heat to the atmosphere. Second after the winds removed thick ice, now more new ice forms each winter and ice formation releases latent heat as well new ice having less insulating capabilities. In accord with this theoretical ventilation of Arctic ocean heat, MIT/Harvard oceanographers recently estimated the upper 700 meters of the Arctic ocean has cooled over the past 2 decades.
Thanks 2#. Latent heat is released in a process of transference between substance with thermal conductivity. When the air above the water containing heat is cold and dry generates the so called “steam fog” we saw over the great lakes in 2014. The inhibition of ice and snow over the Arctic in periods of low radiation can be explained by the lack of differential in energy with its surroundings so water can not release its heat content in order to freeze. Therefore, the atmosphere is not taking the energy required for water to freeze because it contains energy already, carried by water vapour introduced from mid latitudes. That is a trend which would explain the lack of mechanisms mentioned in scientific literature linking all the atmospheric events happening all around the globe. At least that is the conclusion from my research.
I don’t understand your reasoning regards the “atmosphere taking” heat. Heat simply travels from a region of higher temperatures to lower. At 80 degrees north latitude air temperatures are only above freezing for about 80 days during the summer. For about a hundred days during the winter, air temperatures are 25 to 30 degrees below freezing. The Atlantic water between 100 and 900 meters is much warmer than the air, 2 to 4 degrees above freezing, thus heat is traveling from the ocean to the atmosphere.
Temperature is measured through an atmosphere with a molecular composition thermically active. The atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. The molecular composition which absorb and retain radiation affecting climatic regimes and ice cover anomalies are GHGs (CO2) being water vapour the major component as part of a feedback with the other GHGs. Through periods of low radiation (winter) temperature drops enough (as in the Arctic should be) so the molecular composition would be mostly N and O without water vapour since it would freeze. So the atmosphere in itself looses its thermal conductance by drying out. How ever, if there is a forced increment of GHGs, like the increase in water vapour measured in the latest decades, the thermal conductance of the air increases, carrying more energy in circulation by water vapour. Being increased the pool of energy carried at the Arctic decreases the amount of energy which the atmosphere can absorb from the oceans. Water releases energy until it freezes only if it the surrounding medium can take all the energy supplied by the ocean. Otherwise it absorbs energy only up to thermal equilibrium. If this equilibrium is higher than freezing there is no ice.
My research points to an increase of the energy pool in the atmosphere carried by water vapour as consequence of transformations induced in the composition and structure of the gaseous, liquid and solid phases of our environment, from increases of CO2 in the gaseous phase, transformations in energy sinks due to land cover management in the solid phase, and alterations over water cycles due to compartmentalization, inland water losses, acidification and pollution. An increase in the energy pool of the atmosphere explains ice loss in the Arctic, ice increase (at the moment) in the Antarctic (differences in land-ocean contrasts with NH), increasing number of events related with strong winds, water downpours and snow fall, heat heat waves and cold displacements moving crossing latitudes instead of having smooth transitions through longitudes.
Concerning my awareness over Arctic amplification please read the following where I explain my exchange of feedback with Jennifer francis on 2014: https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/revisiting-the-theory-of-facing-a-decrease-in-the-differential-gradients-of-energy-in-atmospheric-circulation-by-diego-fdez-sevilla/
Also you can see my position over Solar forcing in a more extended way in the post Solar Forcing in Our Climatic and Atmospheric Dynamics. Location, Location, Location. https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/solar-forcing-in-our-climatic-and-atmospheric-dynamics-location-location-location-by-diego-fdez-sevilla-ph-d A solar minima would induce lower temperatures in the Arctic increasing the thermal differential between mid-latitudes and Arctic circulation. That would strengthen the Polar Jet Stream, and the current conditions under a solar minima are just the opposite. Convective processes are affecting the configuration of the Polar Jet Stream and all my assessments seem to find a logical explanation for it.
If you translate your acronyms into descriptive dynamics I guess you say that solar minima triggers the wobbliness (rossby waves) of the Polar Jet stream “only” at the NH (-NAO). Such wobbliness affects SST temperature “only” in the Atlantic (AMO), and allows warm mid-latitudinal masses of air to reach “only” the North poles. So, if I have understood your point, a solar minima affects Polar circulation and convective processes only in the NH, also affects SST only in the Atlantic. And yet, the influence of Solar irradiation or winds, do not affect SST at the pacific equator (ENSO) or Indic sea (IODM), neither tropical dynamics (MJO) or have an impact over the SST, air temperature and ice cover at the SH. Then there is the issue of the thermodynamic conditions required for the atmosphere to accommodate the amount of heat and energy (potential, kinetic and thermal) that we can observe. An increase in energetic processes which are not fuelled by an increase in solar input, but instead, by increasing the energetic conductivity of the atmosphere (composition) capable of thermically absorb and carry water vapor. The Sun interacts “with” the chemistry of the atmosphere and its dynamics.
Jennifer Francis’ work came to mind very early on while reading this article. Very interesting that she commented on it. Two thoughts from the peanut gallery here: the technical complexity in this presentation make this almost unapproachable for a layman; and, if I was getting the overall gist “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”, How are Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s and Jennifer Francis’ premises in any way mutually exclusive?
I see that after a week you have not received any answer on your question : “How are Diego Fdez-Sevilla’s and Jennifer Francis’ premises in any way mutually exclusive?”
I think that you deserve an answer but being me the one offering it to you could be seen as biased, so I believe that somebody you trust should be the one. Nevertheless, I can offer to you my analyses addressing such question since 2014 in my blog and researchgate, even though, I can not answer “why you have not received an answer to your question“.
Since I do not want to invade Paul’s wall, you can contact me by email firstname.lastname@example.org or leave a comment in my wall or at the blog.
Basically Francis and me see temperatures raising in the Arctic. My interpretation is that the atmospheric energy pool has increased to the point of invading Altitudes and Latitudes. “Arctic Amplification” sees it as a local event re-emitting radiation from Arctic SST “without SST cooling down”. My take says “kinetic processes are increasing at global scale enhancing global mixing patterns”.
(also with the pointed publication from 2019 a related analysis can be found at:
- 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 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34551.73125
“Why have you not received an answer to your question?
And why haven’t I since 2014?
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:
- at the web.archive.org site http://web.archive.org/web/*/diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
- ResearchGate profile https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diego_Fdez-Sevilla
- LinkedIn Public shares and re-shares testing validation over time https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/diego-fdez-sevilla-phds-research-reach/
- Full Index of Analyses and Timeline https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
- AGU: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2196290/2196290-5986214897078272003
- NOAA: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/156873/156873-5986214921963077634
Would we have a different state of knowledge if that was made out of blind auditions for the assessments presented instead of based on publications with “a Name (Institutional and Personal)”? Is it overrating the value of the message the weight of the messengers in the climatic debate, pushing aside other voices?