Ethics in Science ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

Ethics in Science ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

If you follow the research published in this blog you are already aware of the line which I have explored and defended about identifying modifications in the energetic dynamics behind the weather patterns and atmospheric dynamics.

Among the previous publications are:

October 21, 2014 (Updated 22/Dec/14) New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

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.

May 14, 2015 A roller-coaster of temperatures in South Europe. Spain (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

December 18, 2015 Climate and weather December 2015. Another Polar Vortex another Heat Wave? (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla)

… see them all at the timeline

Profile and publications at ResearchGate

CV at SlideShare

YouTube channel

Since Oct 2013, for more than 3 years I have published 180 pieces of research over the effect of variations in the energy dynamics across the atmosphere (see timeline here). This blog has received more than 16234 visits from more than 800 institutions with scientific backgrounds all round the globe, including Universities, technical colleges, Government administrations, etc (see a sample of the list in the right column of this blog).

In 2014 the line of research defined by the assessments published in this blog could not be verified by peer review articles due to the absence of them applying similar approach. That was confirmed by direct communication with Jennifer Francis by email (in full here) when I shared with her my views over changes in atmospheric dynamics expressed in two publications:

“date: Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM 

Dear Francis,

I have been for a year looking into synergies and parameters which might regulate our climate at global scale and I would like to know your opinion about the accuracy of a theory that I am working on. Could you help me here?

My name is Diego Fdez-Sevilla. I am a Biologist with a PhD in Aerobiology. After couple of years doing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I am myself in a period of transition searching for a new job. However, in such competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in finding ways to stay active in research showing what I am capable of. Since without resources it is very difficult to create data with the standards to publish in scientific journals, I have started my own blog in which I publish pieces of research focused on addressing relevant environmental questions.

Throughout several posts in my blog, I have explored the connections between Solar activity, Biological productivity, Polar vortex, Environmental Resilience, Inland Water Bodies and Water Cycle, Energy Balance and the Influence of Continentality on Extreme Climatic Events. Based on my criteria (always open for corrections) I have developed a theory about what I believe it has induced an increase in atmospheric water vapor content and, further I discuss its implications in atmospheric circulation, Jet Stream behaviour and weather system’s patterns.

Based on my previous research published in this blog and, the arguments pointed out in various assessment, I propose for open evaluation by the scientific community the theory of “Facing a reduced differential energy gradient in atmospheric circulation” and the consequent implications over Weather Patterns, Atmospheric Circulation and Atmospheric Oscillations.

In order for me to test the accuracy and validity of my arguments I would like to find feedback from a multidisciplinary audience. And here is where I ask for your help. I am aware of that you might be busy with your daily responsibilities so I understand that it could take you a while to reply. At the same time, I am cautious about how my own perspective about my own work is limited, and I am open to receive feedback giving me a reality check showing how un-relevant it can be the line of research that I address in my approach. Both options would be welcome. Before moving forward in the development of my thoughts I believe that I have to calibrate the accuracy of my conclusions and points of view.

You will find the most relevant posts in the following links:

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

Thank you in advance.

If you don´t have time I would appreciate you could give me a brief reply so I can confirm that you have received this message.


On December 17, 2014, I was very grateful for having her answer:

“On this particular topic, I would suggest reading the recent review paper that I’ve attached, which includes an extensive bibliography of relevant papers.”

(from the mentioned review paper:

  • How that signal propagates out of the Arctic to mid-latitudes differs and can be loosely grouped under three broad dynamical frameworks: (1) changes in storm tracks mainly in the North Atlantic sector; (2) changes in the characteristics of the jet stream; and (3) regional changes in the tropospheric circulation that trigger anomalous planetary wave configurations.
  • 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 observational studies, share some of the same shortcomings: lack of statistical significance, causality unclear, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and so on))

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

Francis communication

Francis communication

On December 24, 2014, I sent her my reply, which represents the final one since it 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 Artic 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.”

Since those emails many more assessments have been published in this blog supporting the line of research purposed (see Timeline here). Those publications have received many visits but few researchers have chosen to share their opinion on them. And none to acknowledge their contribution publicly through their work.

After more than 3 years sharing my research I don´t know what to think or to say:

“A new publication from Jan. 24, 2017  in the journal Nature Communications, claims to be the first???? to explore the interaction between potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere—and offers a new perspective???? on what is happening with global warming. ”

Analyses of energy cycle offer a new explanation of climate change

Analyses of energy cycle offer a new explanation of climate change Researchers know that more, and more dangerous, storms have begun to occur as the climate …

So, the question is:

Are their findings verifying my research and publications since 2013 or,  is my research the one verifying their findings??

Ethics in Science

Just couple of months ago I made a comment at Linkedin about a publication asking for researchers to be more involved in sharing their research:

Scientists know storms are fueled by climate change. They just need to tell everyone else.

Scientists know storms are fueled by climate change. They just need to tell everyone else. “Scientists know storms are fueled by climate change. They just need to tell everyone else.”…

(Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD) Publications like this create a bitter sweet situation for me. What they claim as needed is what I have been doing for three years. So that is nice. I might be among the first PhD’s performing original research offering assessments in real time at weekly bases throughout an open access portal. And yet, carrying out such activity does not make me feel like that I am getting any closer to find a job. So, is it worthy it? Furthermore, if any assessment is controversial I can be outcast, and when something calls positively the attention of others, “some” fellows might like it enough to create their own publication without any attribution over my contribution. As I could see between my arguments explaining Arctic warming and those from an “expert” at the met office’s blog. So at the end of the day, unless you are a recognised expert or a renowned person whom gets the support and respect required, we get forced to not say everything we know, or think, in order to keep save some of our integrity. So I will have to look into alternatives to find a job and may be, keep my blog alive as a hobby.

I guess the present publication just confirms my arguments. It all depends on the type of attitude adopted by fellow researchers to express the type of ethics they want to represent in Science.


Author’s Disclosure Declaration

For those unaware of the content offered in this blog I might have to issue a warning: Handle with care. Also with the product obtained from scientific analytical thinking there are traces of personal and professional “passion”, by-products obtained from “original and unpeered grey matter juice” originated from “independent critical thinking”. Also sometimes the packaging might be rough around the edges due to its “unfunded nature”.

4 years ago I joined a discussion which made me realise how much knowledge was settled on the past, built upon past conventions and unable to give answers about present developments in all parts of our environment. From the impact from GMOs, plastics, soils degradation, atmospheric composition, land use and cover, water cycles, … I had addressed scientifically unanswered questions before doing my PhD so I decided to give it a go and to offer my take over those gaps. It has been a pilgrimage to become aware of how much faith and fear is put on scientific publishing above raw understanding and discussion.

I do not know how far this blog will go, however, it represents the assessment of a global process and I expect that past posts will become a description of continuous present for the next years.

Altogether, the body of work which represents the line of research presented in this blog is composed by more than 170 pieces, covering data analyses and conceptual discussions. All those different discussions and assessments presented here build together a single concept. The format applied is the result of making a big effort trying to apply simplistic approaches with the aim to allow a multidisciplinary access. Since the topics treated in my publications have implications for many sectors in the academic and not academic world, with the aim of allowing my research for open review, there is also the objective of allowing access to a multisectorial and multidisciplinary audience sharing interest.

Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.

For a more profound discussion over my assessments and analyses as well as constructive feedback, please use my email d.fdezsevilla(at)

My agenda is simple, I am in transition looking for either funding to grow the research published in this blog or for a job position in any field in which my assets are valued. Behind my research there is nothing more, nothing else than to showcase my capabilities doing what I like, research. I am a methodologist. I don´t look at the color of the result obtained, only at the suitability of the method and the coherence of the result. As I have said before, if I am wrong on my assessments and conclusions, it will be better for all, and my work would showcase my capabilities anyway. A CV shines the goals obtained by anyone, but by publishing here my research, I expose myself and my work to public judgement. There is a difference between being naive and raw. If you see the difference you will understand better my work and my personal position.

The aim of publishing my work openly is to allow for it to be exposed for an open review. So any constructive feedback is welcome. After a period of time of at least a month from the publishing date on this blog and at LinkedIn, if no comments are found refuting the value of the piece published I then publish it at ResearchGate generating a DOI for posterior references.

In order to protect my intellectual rights, more assessment in depth and the statistical and numerical analyses that I have performed to support my arguments can be discussed at my email: d.fdezsevilla(at)

If you find that my work is worthy to be acknowledged, share your thoughts openly and publicly because by sharing public acknowledging over the value of my work is what will help me in order to find the attention from those able to allow me access to a job position or resources to increase the functionality of my research.


(This post is part of a more complex piece of independent research. I don´t have funding, political agenda or publishing revenues from visits. Any scientist working in disciplines related with the topics that I treat in my blog knows how to judge the contribution that my work could potentially add to the state of knowledge. Since I am in transition looking for a position in research, if you are one of those scientists, by just acknowledging any value you might see from my contribution, would not only make justice to my effort as independent researcher, but ultimately, it will help me to enhance my chances to find a position with resources to further develop my work.

I believe that the hypothesis that I have presented in previous posts in this blog (here, hereand here) could help to understand present and possible future scenarios in atmospheric circulation. However, this is an assessment based on observation which needs to be validated throughout open discussion and data gathering. So please feel free to incorporate your thoughts and comments in a constructive manner.

If you feel like sharing this post I would appreciate to have a reference about the place or platform, by private or public message, in order for me to have the opportunity to join the debate and be aware of the repercussion which might generate d.fdezsevilla(at)

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

Since October 2013 I have been publishing pieces of research studying the behaviour of the Polar Jet Stream and the weather events associated as well as the implications derived into atmospheric dynamics and environmental synergies.

Many of the atmospheric configurations and weather and climate events we see these days are very similar with the progression followed since 2013. Please take a look at posts addressing those events from previous publications in this blog or look at the categories in the top menu. Also at research-gate. Feedback is always welcomed either in this blog or at my email (d.fdezsevilla(at) All my work is part of my Intellectual Portfolio, registered under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, license and it is being implemented at my profile in researchgate. I will fight for its recognition in case of misuse.

More assessments presenting chronologically the line of research published in this blog can be accessed in the category Framework and Timeline.

For anybody interested in the posts related with this discussion here I leave you those more relevant in chronological order (there are comments bellow some of them. Please check them out, updated 09th Dec 2016):


About Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.

Citing This Site "Title", published online "Month"+"Year", retrieved on "Month""Day", "Year" from By Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD. More guidance on citing this web as a source can be found at NASA webpage:! 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 previous work as scientific speaker in events held in those countries as well as in Switzerland and Finland. After couple of years performing research and working in institutions linked with environmental research and management, I find myself in a period of transition searching for a new position or funding to support my research. In the present competitive scenario, instead of just moving my cv and wait for my next opportunity to arrive, I have decided to invest also my energy and time in opening my own line of research showing what I am capable of. The value of the data and the original nature of the research presented in this blog 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 work and the intellectual rights represented by the license of attribution attached are respected and considered by the scientist involved in this line of research. Any comment and feedback aimed to be constructive is welcome. 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, 2017, I am living in Spain with no affiliation attachments. Free to relocate geographically worldwide. If you feel that I could be a contribution to your institution, team and projects don´t hesitate in contact me at d.fdezsevilla (at) or consult my profile at LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Also, I'd appreciate information about any opportunity that you might know and believe it could match with my aptitudes. The conclusions and ideas expressed in each post as part of my own creativity are part of my Intellectual Portfolio and are protected by Intellectual Property Laws. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial conditions. In citing my work from this website, be sure to include the date of access. (c)Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD, 2016. Filling in or Finding Out the gaps around. Publication accessed 20YY-MM-DD at
This entry was posted in Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Ethics in Science ( by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)

  1. jaimesal says:

    Dear Diego: I have been following you since a long time and appreciate your work. Sometimes some ethical scientific issues are difficult to judge and usually it is somebody else who makes the judgement and perhaps judgements by different judges might not be homogeneous. Literature review usually tends to put merits in the right place at the right time. Keep your good work!


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s