A Note to Reader:
The following story is one of how
this stadium-wave idea evolved. The telling of that tale may be a source
of encouragement for someone embarking on his or her own journey into
the unknown. Regardless of whether or not the hypothesis stands the test of time, the
unfolding of the stadium-wave idea, from seed to blossom, tells
a story about not conforming and not giving up.
Evolution of the stadium-wave idea:
As with any work in science, many hands
work to bring an idea to life. The stadium-wave hypothesis is no
exception. I first presented the
stadium-wave hypothesis to my CU dissertation committee, circa 2008. This,
after a year or two of the idea’s development. The response to my presentation
was flat, at best.
In the months to come, a paper caught my
attention – Tsonis et al. 2007. Similarities in our ideas – climate as a
network - seemed apparent. I contacted Dr. Anastasios
Tsonis of University
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He listened. That spontaneous
encounter launched a trail of discovery! The ‘wave’ came alive. Sergey Kravtsov, a UW colleague of Dr. Tsonis, and
Dr. Tsonis joined the CU dissertation team. I went through 'comps'
successfully, and was off and running - finally! Sergey
Kravtsov coached me remotely. He designed a rigorous statistical
approach with which to document the signal, and taught me the
coding with which to do this. The CU-UW ‘merger’ involved years of work on the
‘wave’, ultimately resulting in the stadium wave’s debut in the literature
(Climate Dynamics (online April 2011; published 2012) : Wyatt,
Kravtsov, and Tsonis (2012)).
Work continued; this next step with John
Peters. At the time John was a UW graduate student of Kravtsov. Together John
and I worked to identify the stadium wave in indices reconstructed from
model-generated data – John was the genius behind the Matlab coding. This study was completed in mid-2011 and published
through Springer (Wyatt and Peters 2012)).
The UW team diverted energy to other
projects. I continued my stadium-wave investigations alone, expanding the
stadium wave temporally (through proxy indices) and spatially - this latter
step incorporating indices for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice and the
Intertropical Convergence Zone.
In 2011, one of my co-advisors – Roger
Pielke, Sr – brought to my attention a posting on Judith Curry's
blog site regarding spatio-temporal chaos by Tomas Milanovic. It was a
fascinating essay, the content of which seemed relevant to my work. I
contacted Dr. Curry, then the department chair of ocean and atmospheric
sciences at Georgia Tech. We discussed the Milanovic
piece . Then we discussed my work.
I sent her my
‘project-under-construction’. She read it and expressed interest. With
that encouragement, I went back to work. In January of 2012, with more
progress under my belt, I again contacted Dr. Curry. Her interest was still
keen. We discussed her joining the team. She accepted, becoming the
newest, and last, addition to my geographically diverse dissertation
committee. The concluding topic, my expanded-stadium-wave study,
took final shape and was written up as chapter three of
the Wyatt dissertation. Successful defense followed in early May, 2012.
Post-degree, I worked on converting
my dissertation's final chapter into a paper - the only chapter remaining
unpublished. Submission was followed by rejection, with the option to
re-submit an abridged version. Which I did, culling out material on proxy
analysis. By late December 2012, things finally seemed to be coming together.
In the meantime, I had heard through Dr. Pielke that Dr. Curry was
interested in seeing this paper. She wanted to blog about it once it was
published. I sent it to her just prior to submission of the newest manuscript
version. She offered editing suggestions. Over the next several days, her
extensive and well-thought-out edits tightened the paper’s message
considerably. I invited her to be co-author. She accepted. After a
grueling journal review, which enhanced the paper’s delivery further, the Wyatt
and Curry 2014 paper was accepted (online: September 2013) and added to the
slowly growing list of published stadium-wave research papers: Wyatt and Curry
From the time (~2007) the seed was planted
in my head by works of Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (1998; 2007), to the most recent
paper (2014), seven years have passed. Many great minds have contributed to
this effort: My co-advisors Peter Molnar
and Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., who supported me and remained patient through the
wave’s development; Drs. Kravtsov and Tsonis, without whom the stadium-wave
would have remained an unknown idea; John Peters who diverted his focus from
his studies to work on code for the modeling project; and Judith Curry who
showed interest and provided extensive editorial feedback, enhancing the
packaging of the message.
With Dr. Curry leading the
charge, the stadium-wave hypothesis gained considerable publicity after
publication of Wyatt and Curry (online September 2013; published 2014). This is
both good and bad. The good is that a study's exposure allows its new
ideas to invite interest and spawn related research efforts. The bad is
that sometimes an idea, especially a somewhat controversial one, is morphed
into being what it is not, and misconceptions about it can be hard to shake.
Sometimes content is misinterpreted. People can have the tendency to interpret
content according to individual filters, with the end-result sometimes
exaggerating what a research finding is or is not; or worse,
sometimes completely misrepresenting it. Thus, an idea can become something it
was not intended to be. This stands as a cautionary note regarding citations.
They do not always accurately portray the paper cited!
No hypothesis can be proven to be true.
Surviving hypotheses have not been proven false, but there is always that
possibility. Science is a slow process. New technologies and/or longer data
sets constantly cast a hypothesis in new light. The stadium-wave
hypothesis has been rigorously tested, and, at the time being, appears
consistent with observation (see discussions of challenges on the stadium wave
and the rebuttals by the stadium-wave researchers: Found on Overview page,
FAQ page, and Publication page; note Kravtsov et al. 2014 rebuts the
challenges.). But only time and further research will tell if it survives. If
it does, its greatest value may lie in identifying what dynamics are missing
or poorly represented in current models, allowing for further improvements in