Memories of an Independent Researcher. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
Many people have interacted with me through my research throughout the years. In some cases, some people have shared their interest encouraging me to move in different directions, or to take actions in several ways, or to consider a broad ways of extending my work. So, what happens with all those suggestions is not always something I can control, and this piece comes as an explanation which I though that I owe to all of them. And, by extension, a letter to those out there in similar situations.
Some Messages received by private messaging throughout the years from my activity shared at LinkedIn:
(Chief Meteorologist) Certainly I concur with many of your opinions, as do, I am sure, many of us in your list of connections. The great amount of writing that you prepare here on LinkedIn assures me that your opinions are well thought out. Controversial to some? Perhaps, but personally I can see that your knowledge of climatic systems is well grounded. Happy New Year, Dr. Sevilla.
(Meteorologist) Hi Diego! I visit your blog, congratulations! Very impressive and interesting. I hope to find more time to read some posts. Have a nice day
(Author/Writer) Hi Diego, I have today endorsed you for talented ‘intercultural communication’ and more generally ‘communication’. You reach out to communities besides your scientific inner circle, which is so important in the common battle against global warming. Best wishes.
(Chief Engineer) Happy to support someone as obviously motivated as you. Your persistence and ambition are impressive keep it up…
(Head of Air and Climate Unit ) I went through your email. I do not have time to look into your links and posts, but your method of gathering opinions and discussion will certainly give you interesting inputs. Kind regards
(Retired) Diego, I’m neither a professional climatologist nor a meteorologist, though both disciplines interest me and I try to keep up with the general literature as it evolves. But I’m not an active researcher who can answer your questions which I think are worth pursuing. I think I can provide some comments on your interesting “combined effect” idea, but not on its interaction with the jet stream, but it will require a couple days to get to it.
() Hello Diego, I got access to your blog, it is very interesting studies. Thanks for the invitation. Your explorations corrects approximate assumption of your colleagues who they are still not perfecting, and are in no hurry to explore the fundamental. I am confident that your research will become a new, precise direction of environmental science.
(Engineer Geophysicist at IGME, expertise in seismic processing, depth imaging and seismotectonics) As far as happens to attend your work and comments I really CAN’T understand WHY you din’t get YET a post in an Institution. DID YOU SEND YOUR CV IN UNITED NATIONS – GENEVA? Diego, send me please once more the link to your blog. Regards
()Excellent article far more than you can imagine Diego Fernández Sevilla, Ph.D. My collegues are quiet pleased – keep up the good work.
(Environmental Health Scientist) I have a dream of winning the lottery and having millions one day. If I did I would start an Aerobiology Institute and I would hire a bunch people including you. We would have fun all day. What a nice dream. I hope it comes true. At the moment I too am not in an academic job and I am longing to go back to research. I hope too but we will see. I hope you are doing well. I do enjoy your blog.
(Atmospheric Physics Meteorology and Research) What you’re doing it’s a very very hard work and you’ll always have all of my support.
(expert) You are out there and you voice your opinions and share your knowledge all this is a inspiration to us all.
(Strategic Science Communication) Are you familiar with Erasmus+ programme of European Union? http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/node_en
(Member of a Worldwide Known Organization) Keep going, Diego. It is important what you do, especially since ‘independent’ research is very valuable.
– Independent Research. –
I have been thinking about if I should or not publish this piece because this is the situation at which we have arrived. It has become difficult to decide what to publish. It doesn’t matter what “you think about it” until what “you think about it” has an impact.
Not many people has the privilege of living shielded from such interaction. And you might wonder, in today’s time, social media is about allowing others to have an impact on you, so why to hesitate?
The following are excerpts from exchange of comments showcasing the situations under which independent research can get you:
(Comment made February 20 2019 by CEO to me) “What I thought about is could you extend your work to farther back in the past from historical records say from NASA and the run through some computations by booking some time on a super computer, I think it may show more details that others would have missed. And may enhance your work even farther, Anyway that’s just an idea :-)”
(answer D.Fdez-Sevilla) I am not sure you are aware of my situation when I say that I am performing research “independently” or as nicely put “independent research”. When I say that I do not have “economic or institutional support” its meaning is literal. In realistic terms what I am saying is that I am unemployed and struggling to move forward. After in 2007 I finished my Phd in UK and a year in Poland as Post-Doc I thought to move back to my home town expecting to have an easy build-up in my new life ahead. Actually, in 2009 I was employed for a year at the local university in the environmental department as coordinator for sustainable policies. However, the year finished and then openings in research stopped. Therefore, since 2010 I have been involved in sporadic jobs in consultancy, as a seasonal waiter, the grape harvest, … When in 2013 I started with my line of research it was based on pure (and naive) passion. I was struggling to find openings in research positions and I thought that I could stand out from the crowd by showing my abilities to produce research capable of addressing relevant questions. And all of that with just a computer from the library of the local university since that would allow me to access papers otherwise blocked by payment restrictions. My research has called the attention of many. You just have to look at the members in my network and you will see people from NOAA, Met Office, the Copernicus EU, Universities, … Just last week I received a message from a member of a “World Renown Organization” encouraging me to “keep going” since “my independent research is very valuable”. When I replied asking for opportunities to receive support from such institution to “keep going” I was told that they do not do research so there was not such opportunity for me. Then I asked for public acknowledgement over the value of my work, and I did not even received an answer. And here there is a big issue. When I have applied for job positions at research institutions those processes rely on three points: number of publications in peer review journals, referees supporting your previous work, AND examples of my publications with the most repercussion. In other hand, if you want to apply for a grant with a proposal, I need a department from an institution as a host backing up my project and a person from that department becoming the manager of the project … So I am screwed in all those fronts. I have members of research institutions visiting my research identified by IP visits and stats at LinkedIn, but no public acknowledgement over the value of my work. So my Cv is weak for applications. I do not have referees willing to support my research (publicly). And I do not have publications in peer review journals. Furthermore, my line of research challenges so many established standards that I am not even sure if making a proposal to a department is even a real possibility when nobody visiting my research have been willing to openly share their interest. And all of that meanwhile publications appear showing similarities with my work difficult to explain denying awareness over it. The kind of actuations that you mention “extend your work to farther back in the past from historical records say from NASA and the run through some computations by booking some time on a super computer” is wishful thinking for me. Since 2010 I haven´t had money even to have holidays. Those are only for whom can pay for them. I do not have money to travel for conferences and I do not have money to pay Journals for my work to be published. In the present time I have applied for an opening in the local university to work as Custodial/Maintenance/Grounds worker cause my CV is not valued at the same university to perform research. This opening requires to undertake an exam from which it will be created a list based on the marks obtained. So at this point it has become more relevant for me to prepare the exam studying about electricity maintenance, carpenters tools and repairs, heating systems, how to treat public demands, … than addressing environmental developments. There are many things that it could be done to extend my research. From things oriented to use more visual friendly and meaningful imagery, even to rewrite the whole approach over atmospheric dynamics changing the description of the variables behaving as drivers and characterizing their interactions. But, all of that requires a team of people and time which can not be spent living from thin air. I guess, now it is not the time. I hope that I replied to your comment with enough clarity about why I do not do more than what I do. What really pisses me off is that what I have done already does not seem to be enough to deserve its credit. People are not looking for a message, but for a messenger, a messiahs, a hero, and there are too many willing to be “the chosen one”. I have thought about publishing my thoughts in my blog but that could even play against any chance of attracting investors cause I even feel ashamed of having so much published and so little recognition. Have I done it so wrong for 5 years that I have not even received criticism? I was born in Dec 1974, I am 44 already, and among all the lessons learnt the hardest to take is to know when to accept that there is nothing more than you can do.
Recommending Someone | LinkedIn Help
This is a message that I have sent to different people throughout the last years to my network of 400+ at Linkedin:
Is there space for all?
Messages exchanged with active member at Linkedin:
(Feb 2019. From me to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading.)
Being an outsider from academia, and even from some of the disciplines where I discuss some topics, puts me in a position under crossing fire. Those suspicious of academic agendas want independent research in simple words, those in academia want it peer reviewed. Me, without an institution backing me up I am just trying to offer coherence from all angles and not get my credibility destroyed in the process for any of both sides.
I see things differently from mainstream based on my experience observing particle behaviour airborne, streamlines in a wind tunnel and fluid dynamics from studying interactions between fluids applied to prepare samples to be analysed under a microscope with different light techniques. That gives me a perspective to interpret satellite images. Most members of academia have chosen not to respond to my queries when I have asked them for feedback. Even Jennifer Francis said to me in 2014 that my assessments could not be taken into consideration because those were not supported by previous peer reviewed publications. I thought that such fact was enough to highlight the value behind my work and not to dismiss it. She claimed that I should offer my own analyses supporting my claims. And that’s what I have done for more than 5 years. So, nowadays I believe that the current dynamics demonstrate the validity behind my assessments but getting recognition of any type seems to raise issues beyond scientific values. I don’t know if I am stepping on the toes of some people or industry. My only will has been to use what I have learnt from years of dedication to research. Even if those years are not represented by peer review publications I reject the idea of that in order to produce research with insight value I have to wait for the permission of the academic world in which I have no place without peer reviewed publications. With all of this I want to explain my back history and add some context to my comments and activity in general. Since my analyses in 2013-14&16 I really see publications supporting my work and I can ensure you that back in those years I was moving into uncharted waters. And many of the publishing scientific institutions have visited my publications (you can see it in the geolocation map at the blog). I am bitter for it while proud of my work. I only miss team work. People whom to trust and share what I left out from publication trying to be cautious. I might have to choose a different path for my career but I hope what I have done stands for its own value and
one day feels inviting enough for others to engage. Before your work gets out I want to comment that I see in the global circulation, and in the NH most extensively, a mixing pattern which makes the jet stream just a visual indicator for the position of the collision between phases, cold and warm. This current is as volatile as the currents in a river dictated by its flow rate but within the perspective of time lapse and the slope in a current as the force carried by coriolis. The thermal contrast plays a role which might be less dominant than thought by mainstream based on some considerations open for discussion. Same as with the SSW. That is my line of thought before your publication comes to be public. I wish you the best and I hope not to bother you too much.
Feel free to express your thoughts and be invited to offer feedback over my publications. I am just a regular guy, born in 1974 living a regular life looking for my next job or an arrogant person with an attitude problem who thinks that knows more I really do.
I agree on that WE are not sure about how to think about it. And it is relevant for the points described and discussed. The use of WE is far overstated. There is a theory for every piece of the environment and for every group of scientists. One theory just for equatorial SST, another just for the Arctic SST, another just for the Polar vortex, other for the sun, other for CO2, other says nothing is happening, and all claim to be “the one”. WE are a mess. And so I can only talk by myself, 1 atmospheric circulation is increasingly unstable, 2 all feeding components of the system have been altered, 3 I am sure, 4 it is a reality where we have more to loose, 5 nothing is broken but the stability of our style of life.
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 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 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.
— (A member said) 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).. —
(replied by Diego Fdez-Sevilla ) 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.
Who Wants Independent Research?, and Why? by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD
Cohen et al.2011 proposed that early snowfall over Asia increases albedo leading to heat retention in the atmosphere provoking Arctic ice to melt and create heat absorption leading to jet stream weakening due to Arctic Amplification in atmospheric heat absorption. However, in August 2014 Cohen et al, published a review over the state of knowledge on climatic research: DOI:10.1038/NGEO2234 “Arctic Amplification and other studies on related topics, especially other observational studies, share some of the same shortcomings: lack of statistical significance, causality unclear, incomplete mechanistic understanding, and so on”.
Based on my experience and training from previous activities in research, I believe that all of that processes including Arctic Amplification, are a consequence and not the trigger. That Arctic Amplification is a symptom and not the cause. And in October 2014 I shared my thoughts publicly at LinkedIn.
Following that comment, in October 2014 I presented a new theory over atmospheric dynamics in a changing environment.
- Ref1- New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.) October 21, 2014 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4859.3440
- Ref2- 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) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2500.0488
November 14, 2014
Ref 1- “What I am trying to highlight in my theory are the possible mechanisms which would explain: changes in albedo which support Arctic Amplification, early snowfalls in central Asia, Arctic ice cover meltdown and oceanic increases in salinity and ultimately, the origin of atmospheric blocking patterns and the pause in T raise unified in single principle: Increasing conc. of CO2 and water vapour induce a decrease in the differential gradients of energy in the global atmospheric circulation, not only the Arctic.
I am looking at the implications of having the global circulation absorbing constant increases in atm CO2 inducing Water vapour to be spread over the global atmospheric circulation. In my approach, instead of looking at what happens in the Arctic as the origin of a chain reaction, I look at what happens in the Arctic just as a side effect (with its own implications) of a more wide process resultant from a reduction between the differential gradients of energy driving compartmentalization and weather patterns in the global atmospheric circulation, being water vapour the carrier of the energy being homogeneously dispersed all over the atmosphere.”
Based on my theory, Greenhouse gases store energy which leads to an increase in global temperature. This increase in T, altogether with synergistic effects from aerosols, allows more water vapor to be contained in the atmosphere, which, consequently, adds more energy into the atmosphere in form of latent heat and kinetic energy. Therefore, this increase in atmospheric energy being carried and distributed all over the hemisphere would infuse power into atmospheric patterns at the same time that it would also reduce the differential energetic gradient between cyclonic events and their surroundings in order to dissipate the energy carried within. Consequently, the energy of those cyclonic events (Low and High pressures) would persist throughout time, altitude and location. Such scenario would decrease the strength of barriers built upon steep differential gradients like the Polar Jet Stream. Furthermore, it would increase the frequency in which masses of warm air from low latitudes would get introduced in polar regions as well as masses of polar air would move across the Jet Stream, across latitudes, moving further South. Following the 2nd Thermodynamics law on entropy, having decreased the differential in gradient of energy between cyclonic events and its surroundings would increase the life span of those events. That would induce an increase in the accumulation of energy in form of latent heat, water vapour and wind strength. Such build-up in power, without dissipating the energy contained within, would give cyclonic events enough strength to interfere with atmospheric barriers like the Polar Jet Stream, breaking it, and also, would allow them to adopt locations that originate “blocking patterns.”
Ref 2- Increases in atmospheric CO2 have being claimed to store energy in the form of heat raising the temperature of the atmosphere. Accordingly, such development would induce the atmosphere to expand allowing more water vapour to be contained. CO2 storing heat and water vapour carrying latent heat and molecular mass add altogether energy in different forms which, in turn, fuel adiabatic processes, weather events and atmospheric circulation.
When considering global circulation, there are patterns of circulation which are built upon strong differential gradients of energy. Warm humid air from tropical or sub-polar regions getting in contact with cold dry air from Polar regions, under the Coriolis effect triggered by the rotation of the Earth, create a current in form of a Jet around the Pole (Lat. 60N) moving from West to East in the North Hemisphere, being called The Polar Jet Stream.
In the first instance, it could be assumed that increasing heat and water vapour contained between the Equator and sub-polar regions would increase the differential gradient of energy between sub-polar and polar atmospheric circulation, increasing the strength of the Jet Stream. That would keep concentrated and isolated cold masses of air from sub-polar circulation. Accordingly, the difference between atmospheric temperature in the Pole and in the Equator would be high and increase with more GHGs.
However, following the second law of thermodynamics, the close contact and persistence of such area of contact would induce in time, an increase in the percentage of air getting exchanged from both atmospheric areas. That scenario would develop a decrease in the difference between Polar and Equatorial temperatures. Situation which can be already observed in the records available.
Here I hypothesise that it can be considered that the volume of the atmospheric system accommodating increasing conc. of GHGs and water vapour has expanded from sub-polar regions into Polar Circulation. Consequently, following the second law of thermodynamics, an added space for those gasses to expand would allow for the atmosphere containing GHGs and water vapour to retain more heat with no increase in atmospheric temperature. Which it could explain why under increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 there has been a so called “pause” in global warming.
Increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 and Water vapour would incorporate forms of energy not only into cyclonic events, increasing its strength, but also it would increment the energy in the atmosphere around it. A scenario in which the difference between the energy carried by an atmospheric event and the atmosphere surrounding it is high, the energy in a cyclonic event would dissipate faster, losing strength and resilience. However, we can see in the North Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, cyclonic and anticyclonic events building what it has being called “blocking patterns”, growing from near surface level (1000 hPa) to levels as high as the Jet Stream (250 hPa).
For all of these reasons, I see a reasonable link between the recent observed disturbance in the atmospheric circulation of the Jet Stream, without the Polar Vortex being broken yet, and the possibility of being the result of a decrease in the differential gradients of energy between cyclonic events and atmospheric barriers like the Jet Stream. Under such scenario, the Jet stream loses stability becoming wobbly, allowing more frequent exchange of masses of air between both cold and warm sides. (for more discussion in this topic see previous post (Updated 19_Nov) A Groundhog forecast on climate at the North Hemisphere. New theory proposal to assess possible changes in Atmospheric Circulation (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD).
Such theoretical approach called the attention of many, but strangely enough, there were no comments about it, neither at the blog or at the groups like NOAA and AGU at Linkedin: :
The definitive proof of the challenge ahead from carrying an original and innovative theory was confirmed in December 2014 by direct communication with Prof Jennifer Francis by email whom claim that there were no existence of previous peer review publications supporting my assessments (in full here).
What/who is credited and what/who is published not always goes together
Just 3 moths after offering my approach to the scientific community the following publication appeared:
Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. F. Laliberté1,*, J. Zika2, L. Mudryk3, P. J. Kushner1, J. Kjellsson3, K. Döös4
See all authors and affiliations. Science 30 Jan 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6221, pp. 540-543 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257103
Because the rain falls and the wind blows
Global warming is expected to intensify the hydrological cycle, but it might also make the atmosphere less energetic. Laliberté et al. modeled the atmosphere as a classical heat engine in order to evaluate how much energy it contains and how much work it can do (see the Perspective by Pauluis). They then used a global climate model to project how that might change as climate warms. Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms.
Incoming and outgoing solar radiation couple with heat exchange at Earth’s surface to drive weather patterns that redistribute heat and moisture around the globe, creating an atmospheric heat engine. Here, we investigate the engine’s work output using thermodynamic diagrams computed from reanalyzed observations and from a climate model simulation with anthropogenic forcing. We show that the work output is always less than that of an equivalent Carnot cycle and that it is constrained by the power necessary to maintain the hydrological cycle. In the climate simulation, the hydrological cycle increases more rapidly than the equivalent Carnot cycle. We conclude that the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.
Even though my work is not cited, it points straight to it: “the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates “might limit” the heat engine’s ability to generate work.”
This situation in which ethical behaviour in recognising authorship originality is left completely obviated it really jeopardises the credibility of those involved in the current publication and open questions about any other in which same behaviour might have followed. And furthermore, generates a breach in trust extending to the whole community involved in allowing for such situations to happen. From the peer reviewers to those scientists reading the article after publication but keeping silence over the evident lack of ethical considerations.
Credit Where Credit Is Due
Many people have interacted with my research throughout the years. In some cases, some people have shared their interest encouraging me to move in different directions, or to take actions in several ways, or to consider a broad ways of extending my work. So, what happens with all those suggestions is not always something I can control, and this piece comes as an explanation which I though that I owe to all of them. And, by extension, a letter to those out there in similar situations.
When some people call my attention over some publication where they want me to engage I kind of get overwhelmed by the task ahead. One example can summarize it all in the following exchange of messages:
(Message received: Diego, Some of this looks familiar … I thought you might be interested.
Diego Fdez-Sevilla reply:
Yes, thanks. I don’t agree with what I see, and the people liking it knows my point of view (or at least based on their likes to my publications also) so I do not know what to think if they agree with the content of my publications and this one, with nothing to comment at the same time.
The Arctic magnification theory had an investment in money and prestige by those proposing it that it is not a question of getting into discussion. If you know from my publications my exchange of email with Jennifer Francis you can see that the voices of today’s debate are ruled by whom has the influence over the media and the rest of people follow and like publications without a sense of critical thinking. I have written my arguments in order to explain myself and to give others the opportunity to see by themselves what I see. It is not about being me the one holding an argument like a sword getting into the battles picked by others. It is for me to show my tools and for the others to evaluate if those are of they like and want to use them in the battles they want to engage into. I appreciate your calls of attention, and I have received more calls pointing me to places where I wonder what are they expecting me to do. I can defend my work because I understand it, but I don’t think that throwing it into the faces of others will make any good. My work will get noticed only when it calls the attention of others because somebody else than me uses it defending its value. I rather prefer to answer any question you have about my work than trying to fight every fight everywhere. If I find a job unrelated with this situation I would be happy. I am happy with what I have learnt already and I feel satisfied with the work that I have produced. People will use it with no credit, and others will dismiss it, and if nobody cares and it does not make my life easier, I have not come here to stay.
What needs to survive the pass of time is my work in the hands of others, not my persona.
Please, take all my gratitude about your shares for what it is interesting and more than appreciation is what I have when you make comments encouraging participation. I am really grateful to you and proud of knowing that my work has had an impact on someone willing to engage publicly on its recognition. I have had people in my network at linkedin sharing me locations where discussion were taking place that made wonder what is that it is supposed for me to do. In reality, if I am the only one talking about my work is like listening a seller whom is the only one recommending his product. I would be honoured to see people applying my work in their discussions and process of thinking, giving the attribution to what I have produced. That is what it would make me happy and it would call the attention of others. That is what we all do when we hear others offering something new. Don´t you think?
The publication from ***** is an example where it hurts to see how people use my research without attribution and nobody seems to be bothered. I can not be the police of my work everywhere. If might work is worth for others, they should share the fight for it. Otherwise, if I am the only one putting out fires I will become judged for it.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
‘Professors eat their own young’: how competition can stifle good science.There is often more pressure for scientists to work against each other than together – but why?https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/jan/29/professors-eat-their-own-young-how-competition-can-stifle-good-science
We are measured by the impact of our actions. That is why social media exerts such pressure over those judging themselves over the number of likes. Some publications take the credit for granted just based on the name holding this publication so there is huge investment into being broadcasted in those mediums. Even if such credit comes questioned by the rest of the community. Those of us naive enough or by force, to offer our work in an independent platform, rely entirely on our capacity to overcome such limitations in resources with quality, seeking to make our own work worth of credit by those with the capacity to make an impact with their actions. But sadly, some likes are more equal than others. Those in universities and institutions like the WMO, NOAA, ECMWF, CNR, Copernicus, UN, Met Office, are willing to incorporate new ideas in order to become more competitive but tied to recognise publicly the value of independent research offering those. A real struggle between personal ethics and professional competition. None of these person have made comments publicly giving credit to the work presented, and neither criticism, cause that means acknowledging awareness over my work, jeopardising the potential of using it without credit. Don’t tell, don’t ask. Takes too much courage to show awareness in some positions by the responsibility which brings attached with it.
More to talk about
My profile at LinkedIn reads as follows:
Congratulate Diego’s anniversary Celebrating 9 years at “Independent”
The following is the literal transcription of an exchange of messages occurred last week Feb 6, 2019. I keep names anonymous since this exchange it represents a situation and not a person.
– (Mr/Ms *****, Head of Unit at International Organization ####.) Diego, Congrats on your work anniversary!
– Thanks *****, thought more than a work anniversary this is a “situation” reminder. I am not part of any institution or receive any form of material support. I am doing things as an “independent” researcher trying to show that I can “work” even under this circumstances. I appreciate that you make contact though and I hope that my work offers to you a contribution worth of your attention. Thanks.
– (Mr/Ms *****, Head of Unit at ####.) Keep going, Diego. It is important what you do, especially since ‘independent’ research is very valuable.
– Dear ****, After more than 5 years, I am afraid I am not in a position to keep going with my analyses over climatic developments. I have been using my savings from previous employments and sporadic short term jobs to point out the missing consistency behind the never ending debate on climate. But without official recognition over the value behind my work I have found myself blocked from having access to funding or employment allowing me to continue for much longer.
I have applied for positions at the ECMWF, at the Met Office, European JRC, … where the selection evaluation considers number of publications and referees which I have not been able to find. In one hand I am facing academics using my work without recognition while at the same time there is no official recognition making it a “tangible value” from which I can benefit to grow further.
When I started to publish my analyses in 2013 it was because I felt that there was missing consistency in the methodological approaches delivering theories about climatic developments and atmospheric dynamics.
Having training in studying the broad fields of biological sciences and a PhD looking into the aerodynamic behaviour of streamlines from my thesis I felt compelled to add my voice highlighting the enormous gaps of knowledge being left unaddressed.
I reached the NOAA and AGU groups looking for approbation and I received silence.
- AGU: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2196290/2196290-5986214897078272003
- NOAA: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/156873/156873-5986214921963077634
Even in 2014 I was told about my line of research by Prof. Jennifer Francis that “Nothing is evident if is not published in peer review articles”. You can find the exchange of emails in the publication: “Climbing the Hill of Acknowledgement. Peer reviewed articles supporting previous assessments and research published in this blog. (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD.” https://diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/climbing-the-hill-of-acknowledgement-peer-reviewed-articles-supporting-previous-assessments-and-research-published-in-this-blog-by-diego-fdez-sevilla-phd/
When my line of research was not valid to be acknowledged due to lack of peer reviewed articles, there was no acknowledgement for such evaluation as something of merit. It was just dismissed and later on applied by others to make their own publications. If the WMO finds value in my work I would most happily offer my work to be incorporated in your lines of research, offering my views, data and imagery. But what it concerns to keep going on unsupported, I can not longer sustain it. Just now I have registered in a list of selection to work in an University in the “maintenance” activities, because my cv does not have the recognised value to apply for positions in research. Just to show my commitment to veracity you can find my name here: Selection process: https://xxxxxx. Thanks anyway for your kind words.
I was born in 1974 and looking at the years pass by I am not even getting retribution or acknowledgement building a sustainable future. It is satisfying to do what I love knowing that it might be useful in a broader context but not if jeopardize my life and my relationship with those around me.
Diego Fdez-Sevilla, PhD
– (Mr/Ms *****, Head of Unit at #####.) I am so sorry, Diego. The #### technical secretariat does not do research itself, if works with the research community. I do hope that you will find a job that is satisfying enough, while leaving you some time to also do what you love most. With kind regards, Mr/Ms *****
It is scary to consider how many “uncivilized” people have been “converted or die” under the supremacy of those with the “power” of “writing and reading”. A scientist could write a book on the Amazonia forest and be praised for it. Nobody will give credit to the person accompanying him into the jungle keeping him alive thanks to his not written knowledge. The power of books as weapons have many applications. You can use them to guide others, and read them to guide yourself but also you can become paralysed by them. Like with social media, “If you convince someone that he is too ignorant to change the world, he will willingly enclose himself in a library and never find enough knowledge to leave the room or time to discover what he/she could add into such world.” And that can be used to neutralise a person, a community, a generation, a society, … read and don´t do or think. There is no need to know it all that is written, or permission by peers to think by yourself and have something to add.
Opposite to those theories claiming that “cold air is getting more rare, and we will, ever more rarely, continue to have record cold temperatures” my research shows that there is the possibility of actually seeing more frequently extreme cold temperatures appearing over unprecedented locations while same opposite temperatures might occur simultaneously in other unprecedented locations, and all of that with transitions marked by strong variations through time increasing thermal amplitude regimes in the horizontal and vertical vectors.
What differentiates an opinion from an argument on climatic discussions, is the capacity to develop scenarios based on arguments consistent enough to be validated through time and in contrast with real time developments. So I would like to contextualise the results from my line of research with the latest meteorological assessment recapturing the attention over a previous publication.
The following forms part of a global assessment on climatic developments published between 2013-19 at diegofdezsevilla.wordpress.com
- October 13, 2016 Global Mixing in Atmospheric Dynamics (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla Ph.D.) DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21255.60320. https://wp.me/p403AM-1eR
*- Based on the results discussed throughout the present line of research, there is the possibility of actually seeing transitions marked by strong variations in time increasing thermal amplitude regimes in the horizontal and vertical vectors despite any signals from the ENSO.