The Evolution of Climate and Cases of Covid19 Worldwide 5 May 2020 D Fdez Sevilla PhD
Designed for best view in desktop format.
By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD (c) Biologist PhD in Atmospheric Biology. Publications registered with DOIs at Researchgate with orcid.org/0000-0001-8685-0206. CV english and español. Resume. Interdisciplinary Skills applied in the line of research presented.- Index for all analyses published Since 2013. – Shares and Feedback at LinkedIn
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Evolution of Covid19
In the following animation I have gathered the data for the evolution of the cases of Covid19 and deaths worldwide. Since 31 December 2019 and as of 05 May 2020, 3 544 222 cases of COVID-19 (in accordance with the applied case definitions and testing strategies in the affected countries) have been reported, including 250 977 deaths.
Evolución de casos acumulados COVID-19 en España Actualizado a 5 de mayo de 2020 Basada en la notificación diaria de casos agregados de COVID-19 al Ministerio de Sanidad.
The relevant piece of information that I would like to highlight is that, what we are dealing with is not just the rate of transmission, but the Viral Load building up and becoming remanent in the population. The rate of transmission is as good to stop the spread of the virus as the behaviour of the people around the world.
The capacity for the virus to affect the health of people is the same with or without a high rate of transmission, being characteristic of its nature. That which makes it different from the common flu. Whilst the capacity for the virus to infect a person relies on its genetic code, the capacity for the virus to actually spread is just a reflection of the conduct of people.
Even when the rate of transmission is reduced, the remaining virus is as deadly and contagious as it was in the few numbers at the beginning.
In a similar way that the role played by Oxygen in a fire, we are the oxygen and the Covid19 is the gasoline. The absence of contact between people inhibits the Virus to react with “more oxygen”. The more people getting in contact, more “oxygen” is added in the mixture, the “fire” intensifies, spreads, and more violent is “the combustion”.
Viruses need a host to survive like Gasoline needs oxygen to combust.
In another hand, many times is being used the reference to the historical event of the Spanish flu to compare with current pandemic Covid19. And it is true that such experience can allow us to apply the lessons learned. But that seems to have become a challenge, and it reflects in different ways, starting with the use of media. What did we learn that is being applied?
When a rare flu first appeared in early March 1918, it had all the characteristics of a seasonal flu, although it was a highly contagious and virulent strain. One of the earliest recorded cases was an army cook in Kansas USA. The virus spread rapidly through the Army facility, home to 54,000 soldiers. By the end of the month, 1,100 soldiers had been hospitalized and 38 had died after developing pneumonia.
As American troops were deployed en masse for the war effort in Europe, they carried the rare flu with them. Throughout April and May 1918, the virus spread like wildfire throughout England, France, Spain, and Italy.
Interestingly, it was during this time that this rare flu gained its inappropriate name. Spain was neutral during the First World War and, unlike its European neighbors, did not impose wartime censorship on its press. In France, England and the United States, newspapers were not allowed to report anything that could harm the war effort, including news that a devastating virus was ravaging troops. Since Spanish journalists were among the only ones to report a widespread flu outbreak in the spring of 1918, the pandemic became known as the “Spanish flu.”
Previous related analyses:
23 March 2020 “Coronavirus COVID19, Man, Weather and Climate (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)” Registered in pdf with DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24007.44960 Project: Filling In/Finding Out Gaps Around in Environmental Sciences. Diego Fdez-Sevilla
April 22, 2020 COVID19 Containment Strategies. The Summation effect of Contagion Rate Curves and Exposure to Population Viral Load (D. Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Registered DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.13948.49288
20 March 2020 CoronaVirus COV19 y la Persistencia de Contaminación y Transmisión por Contacto con Superficies. No te conviertas en un problema. Registered DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27317.01762 Project: Filling In/Finding Out Gaps Around in Environmental Sciences. Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
10 April 2020 Estrategias de Contención del COVID19. El Sumatorio de las Curvas de Tasa de Contagio y la Exposición a la Carga Vírica Poblacional (D. Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Registered DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14543.23202
The evolution of a Climate
There are many similarities around the world between facing the spread of COVID19 and many other environmental issues. Globalization is a term that shows to have “global” implications.
I have been working for many years assessing the value of numerical Indicators to address the performance of the environment and the strategies to be implemented. From studying indicators aimed to avoid cross pollination from GMOs, indicators to assess allergen load in the atmosphere, indicators to evaluate a change in climatic conditions and even indicators to evaluate the performance of University Degrees building a portfolio adapted to the demands of the society. Now “indicators” are being built to address the Covid19 and to design strategies to be applied to define the measures to contain the COVID19.
(related analysis: October 9, 2017 Statistical Significance in Climatic developments. The Scary Side of Being Mild (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21934.61767
The organisms and leaders of our world are playing exactly the same role for Environmental debates as for the COVID19. The same strength and functionality is seen in governments, political, scientific and popularity leaders, and institutions about how much input have they played to control the COVID19 as for Environmental and Climatic transformations.
Throughout all my career since 2003 I have faced the challenge of explaining that numerical indicators are just as good as the method applied to make them and the person making the interpretation of the data. Everybody can build charts and indicators based on numbers, a different matter is to understand what those numbers mean and, most importantly, what those numbers are not capable of representing.
Something that many people are not realising is that the COVID19 is taking all resources available from hospitals and health services. We are counting the number of deaths directly linked with those suffering the Virus. But, at the same time, since health services are overcrowded with a contagious epidemic, all other treatments aimed to live threatening health issues are being postponed.
In other words, there are deaths which are related with the accessibility to health services and which are not counted as COVID19. As the spread of the Virus is linked to social behaviour, and this to hospitals performance, altogether, the number of deaths due to lack of early attention by health services overcrowded by COVID19 are going to worsen.
A leader, as any other person, does not have to know it all about everything, but at least has to know where to find the source of information that he/she is missing and delegate to those with more expertise in the subject.
Social behaviour and leadership walk hand by hand, everyone holds a responsibility.
The health state of ecosystems come for the equilibrium of having evolution playing a role thanks to the creation of compartments. That is what has led into evolutionary branches showing in genetic codes. The compartmentalization of evolution was enabled by stratifying environmental conditions. The most known example is the island effect in geographic terms. But such stratification and compartmentalization is shown also between aquatic and dry soil microenvironments in the same forest. And even between roots and leaf canopy for the same tree.
Human activities are breaking all barriers of isolation. From soils turned around, forests dismantled, atmospheric currents affected by alterations in zones of convection due to artificial changes in albedo and transpiration..
As a result, species feel the change in their environment and react to such pressure changing behaviour. New niches of opportunistic growth raise from putting in contact species before isolated. Growth for the most resilient: microorganisms
This publication is linked with Previous Related Analyses.
- Breaking the Mountain of COVID19 under a Climate in Transition (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) April 16, 2020
- Arguments, Discussion and Points of View on Climate. The relevance of building a “Framework” to find “Nexus points” offering “Proof of Concept” (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) January 16, 2020
(Conclusions and Update from the line of research carried out since 2013 on Environmental Synergies. Main Index at Home Page)
Climate, Environment and Man. From October 2013 to May 2020
|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|
Since 2013 my posture addressing the atmospheric dynamics that we see might differ from main stream since those are heavily relying on oceanic temperatures as triggers. I actually follow a different point of view.
My assessments take SST as subsequent conditions driven by wind shear. So the interaction between masses of air in circulation allow or inhibit 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 “ground” where the game will be played (sort of speak). Like the effect of the ice conditions in an ice hockey match.
In the last years we have seen an increase in the frequency for the Arctic absorbing strong perturbations from mid-latitudinal circulation and vice-versa.
Based on my research 2013-2020 I believe that the developments that we see at both Hemispheres are all related with the state of the circulation at the mixing areas between polar circulation and midlatitudinal masses, over the oceanic basins, in a feedback loop with the developments at the Equator. Would my work be accurate?
Based on previous analyses presented in the current line of research some patterns suggested in atmospheric circulation can be put in contrast with real time events. In that order I would like to show imagery to be contrasted from today 5 May 2020 with the GFS model for the days between 2 May to 14 May 2020 and previous suggested patterns emerging.
|October 13, 2016||Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.) ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21255.60320|
More discussion can be found in the following analyses:
* February 28, 2018, Arctic Warming as a Result of Convective Forcing by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD Registered DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34551.73125
May 16, 2019 Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities in Atmospheric Circulation. Follow-Up on Atmospheric Dynamics and Climatic Implications (By Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Registered DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26791.80805
These and more analyses can be found at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Diego_Fdez-Sevilla
Body of work
Whatever the discussion is about multiples future scenarios, we should be able to, at least, define our present scenario in order to work with it. In my research, and throughout more than 200 analyses, I have worked in this direction. I have described our present scenario based on consolidating theoretical arguments with real time developments. I do not know any other scenario described and published able to do that. After seeking feedback from experts in the field by email (Jennifer Francis among them) and platforms such as AGU and NOAA groups at linkedIn, my assessments have not received comments or arguments invalidating the conclusions presented. I expose my assessments in this blog trying to allow anyone to be the reviewer contrasting current developments with my arguments and conclusions, enabling Official Bodies and Established scientists to consider the value of my research despite its informal format. The current line of research since 2013 has been carried out without institutional or economic support. Funding and sponsorship of any size is welcome in order to acknowledge the value of the effort already invested and to support its continuity.
In research, what it is relevant it is not always what it is New, what doesn´t get old. The relevant research is the one that it survives the pass of time becoming validated by the real time developments implied.
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 2014 I shared my conclusions studying atmospheric dynamics and their Climatic implications with the public media and specific Scientists by email. Among all the silence received one voice replied to my call for feedback. I was told by a lead scientist in climatic developments, Prof. Jennifer Francis that; “The topic you’ve written about is extremely complicated and many of your statements have not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research.” The absence of available arguments to refute my research, instead of recognising my accomplishment, was filled with an excuse (not yet been verified by peer-reviewed research), and even questioned my understanding of the state of the research, knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and not enough 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) Researchgate: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1975.7602/1
In a following stage I have re-shared all those previous “New assessments” to be contrasted against real time developments being unfold in the next years.
After 200+ analyses 2014-19, have I done enough?diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
This year 2020 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 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 T. The whole approach described in my theory can be observed by the increasing dynamics displayed in the atmosphere as Rayleigh-Taylor Instabilities due to an increase in global mixing between two fluids with different densities, those from the MidLatitudes and the Arctic. (January 13, 2016 Atmospheric Dynamics And Shapes Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35973.65765 “Behind an increase in the amount of work carried out by masses of air there is an increase in the energy fuelling such dynamics.” May 16, 2019 Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities in Atmospheric Circulation. Atmospheric Dynamics and Climatic Implications Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26791.80805
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.
Climate change can not be own as a patent, its cure neither because its cure is just social behaviour reducing the consumerism that triggers environmental deterioration and for the industry to make products made to last. But the market as we know it, would be less “dynamic”.
If there is not vaccine for contamination, lets make one for each virus or bacteria we know. Since viruses and bacteria are prompted to suffer more mutations as contamination grows, the market for vaccines will increase as contamination grows. And that is how the story goes. Ultimately, the mindset is drifting towards thinking that the solution for the environmental risks that we are exposed to due to human activities lies on finding a the vaccine against nature.
The biotic component of our environmental system is the only one capable of interacting against thermodynamic and genetic 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 Nature.
The Compartmentalization of Evolution (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) August 5, 2016 https://wp.me/p403AM-18K at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress .com