Climate dynamics 101 and my PhD research.

Earth’s climate is the result of a dynamical system that absorbs energy from the incoming solar radiation. Not all of this energy is absorbed, considering that clouds and Earth’s surface reflect part of this radiation towards space. Once absorbed, this energy is either re-emitted as Earth’s surface thermal radiation or transits in a great journey that shapes our weather systems across the world. But, as with the energy contained in the incoming solar radiation, not all of this energy necessarily exits the system at once. The ocean, the atmosphere and their circulation delay or expedite the emission of the energy towards space in the form of thermal radiation.

In equilibrium, the net energy from the absorbed solar radiation should equal the energy in the outgoing thermal radiation, resulting in a zero net accumulation of energy in the system. However, if the system is forced «externally», the equilibrium breaks and the system responds to get a new equilibrium. The paramount example of our time is the man-made forcing that introduces CO_2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO_2 concentration augments the opacity of the atmosphere to thermal radiation emitted by the surface of the Earth and reduces the energy emitted towards space in comparison to the energy absorbed by the system. Thus, there is a net imbalance of energy that, eventually, translates into an increase in surface temperature.

The increase in surface temperature intensifies the thermal radiation as if the Earth tries to cool down by emitting more energy to space to recover the balance. However, temperature increase also changes other variables in the system. Some changes promote even more the accumulation of energy in the system (e.g. increased atmospheric water vapour that opaques more the atmosphere to thermal radiation) or work against the imbalance (e.g. increased mixing of the atmosphere to cool down the surface and warm up the upper troposphere, increasing the outgoing thermal radiation). These mechanisms are known as feedbacks. The ones that intensify the energy imbalance are positive feedbacks, whereas the ones that oppose are known as negative feedbacks. The sum of all of them is the so-called climate feedback, which is negative (if it were positive, the Earth would be an unstable system).

The above picture should be definitive: man-made global warming is out of any question. On top of man-made climate change, we have natural forcing (solar, orbital, natural variability, volcanoes and the like). Still, the natural forcing during the historical period has not changed as much as man-driven forcing and can not explain the observed warming.

In the article that Thorsten Mauritsen and I wrote and that appeared last week online in the journal Nature Geoscience, we look into the estimates of the real Earth’s short- and long-term climate sensitivities to a doubling of CO_2 concentrations. These sensitivities are temperature changes due to a doubling of CO_2 concentration. With the climate responses, we can derive estimates of future warming. Since the climate response depends on the forcing, climate feedback, and the imbalance in the energy budget, our estimates of the quantity have uncertainties. Some of the components —such as man-driven CO_2 forcing— have a small uncertainty. Others —such as the net man-driven aerosol forcing, the cloud effects on the energy budget and the ocean’s heat uptake— have large uncertainties across the instrumental record (the 20th and 21st centuries). Aerosol forcing is usually negative, that is, tends to reduce the total forcing. Then, if the real aerosol forcing were more negative than our expected value, the total forcing would be weaker than thought. Thus, the real Earth’s sensitivity should be higher because it needed less total forcing than thought to attain an observed temperature change. Conversely, if the real forcing is less negative, then the total forcing is stronger. Thus, the sensitivity is lower, because it needed more forcing to attain the observed warming. Therefore, as you can see, uncertainty is the key reason for the continuous research on climate sensitivity. What we found in our paper is that we reduced the uncertainty in the estimates of the climate sensitivities by using the warming observed since the 1970s. This period has less uncertainty in the aerosol forcing. But also we found that the estimates are higher than found before, based on physical reasons. For the short-term climate sensitivity we found that it is 20 per cent higher than calculated previously (from 1.41 to 1.67 in our study). This higher value stems from the absorption of part of the forcing by the upper layers of the ocean, an effect that was not considered in the usual energy-budget calculations. For more on these results look at this link.

Game of Thrones: an apology of morbid fascination.

Either «A Song of Ice and Fire» or its television version «Game of Thrones» is widely praised for being an example of adult fantasy that constructs realistic characters, in contrast to high fantasy such as «The Lord of the Rings» by J.R.R Tolkien. Fans of George R.R. Martin (is there any commercial opportunism in this name?) consider that other characters from fantasy literature are stereotyped and shallow.

The HBO television series has been endorsed by Mr Martin. For now, and until I am convinced to read the books thoroughly, this is my reference to the universe of «A Song of Ice and Fire». The character development, when I watch this show, is the opposite of complex characters. They are ruthless, vicious, with basic instincts and plainly idiotic. The assumed deepness is based on a degenerate society. Instead of an ideal societal order, we are shown the opposite: a debased culture from top to bottom. Both things, perfect and totally degraded cultures, are not realistic. Here we confirm a trend in the United States of America culture, in which popular characters are morally questionable or antiheroes. Even characters that are not harsh are criticised as shallow. It seems that unattended metal problems or wrong attitudes towards other human beings are signals of toughness and superiority.

Across history, we have examples of horrors. But even within these dark periods, society was not completely broken. Thanks to the non-broken individuals and collectives, the world survived the fall of great civilisations or the massive and useless destruction of lives (as in WWII). Mr Martin remarks that the Westeros political turmoil is based on the War of the Roses of the Great Britain Middle Ages. However, he enhances by much the vileness of the conflict. Thus, although Mr Martin is allegedly inspired by Tolkien, he does not understand the purpose of the fantasy à la Tolkien, which is co-creation.

Tolkien never wanted to make allegories or dull imitations of the real world. Tolkien works are meant as the folklore of the Middle-Earth, an alternate version of the real Earth. In fact, Tolkien simply «translated» the books that Bilbo and Frodo wrote («The Hobbit» and «The Lord of the Rings»). Even the Silmarillion is a compilation of ancient elvish lore translated by Bilbo in Imladris. Then the stories are not entirely objective and show the values and complexities of Bilbo, Frodo, the Elves and, outside the universe, the views of Tolkien himself. This is more realistic than «A Song of Ice and Fire». If we saw the creation of Mr Martin et al. in the same light as Tolkien’s, we would conclude that Mr Martin and the producers of the show are the worst persons in the world. This is not the case but they respond to the urges of part of the society which enjoys a morbid fascination for the cruelty.

The truth is that nobody has achieved what Tolkien did. Tolkien set the foundation of the modern high fantasy. After him, fantasy writers had tried without success to go beyond the level set by Tolkien. They have only imitated him. Even great ones like Ursula K. Le Guin or C.S. Lewis cannot go over the Tolkienian level. Mr Martin et al. are inferior to these great writers.

Moreover, I feel that Mr Martin is condemned to be like the character Martin Silenus of the science fiction novel Hyperion by Dan Simmons. Martin Silenus is a very troubled poet that had a very successful first work, the poem «Dying Earth», but he ends writing meaningless fiction. I see in this way Martin’s «A Song of Ice and Fire» or J.K. Rowling’s «Harry Potter» series, for example.

¡Pídeme disculpas!

El pedir disculpas, u otorgar perdones, establece una relación en desigualdad entre las partes implicadas, incluso entre personas. Mientras que en las personas es justa esa relación desigual, porque los individuos son capaces de decidir y de hacerse responsables de sus actos, las colectividades no gozan de tales privilegios. Mucho menos cuando agregamos grandes cantidades de tiempo.

 

En Alemania, la culpa colectiva ha llegado al punto de establecer leyes que de algún modo disuaden o al menos hacen casi tabú el análisis y la discusión abierta del nacionalsocialismo. Llegan hasta tal punto que cualquier uso del nacionalsocialismo que no pueda ser considerado arte, deba ser censurado. Al restringirse la discusión de los temas en un contexto no culpabilizador, la sociedad no afronta la tarea principal que es evitar una repetición de la historia. Ese es el uso verdadero de la historia, no la búsqueda de culpables colectivos para hechos pasados.

 

Tal cosa pasa no sólo con los perdedores (los alemanes perdieron), sino con los ganadores o con los que fueron sometidos. Ahí tenemos el ejemplo de EUA, Israel o Polonia, donde está habiendo discriminación a inmigrantes, homofobia y los extremismos están ganando terreno. Es decir, no sólo la culpa sino el sentirse triunfador o agraviado, y quedarse en ese estado, supone un signo de enfermedad social.

 

Así pasa con México. Cuando era niño, las clases de historia de México siempre me hacían enojarme con España, porque en las clases te enseñan que eran los españoles los que habían exterminado y acabado con esplendorosas culturas que vivían en un casi paraíso. Y te están enseñando puras tonterías. Ni los mesoamericanos eran perfectos, ni sus sociedades eran ideales, ni eran inocentes. Eran seres humanos de carne y hueso, tanto como los españoles que llegaron.

 

Por un lado, los mexicas cavaron su propia tumba y la tumba de Mesoamérica, porque eran unos desgraciados con sus vecinos. Cuando los españoles llegaron, no necesitaron mucho tiempo para darse cuenta y aprovechar las injusticias que se daban entre los pueblos mesoamericanos. Éste hecho y la diferencia tecnológica entre pueblos facilitó la conquista de México. Situaciones similares sucedieron en Sudamérica.

 

Pero veamos que pasó con los españoles. De entre los primeros que llegaron para conquistar y colonizar, atreviéndose a la aventura de cruzar la mar, vivir penurias y poder morir, no había muchos intelectuales ni mucha gente amable. En los viajes de Colón, usaron a presos y gente pobre. En las siguientes expediciones para colonizar Cuba y de ahí explorar el continente que ya había sido avistado, se añadieron personas con gran avidez por conseguir tesoros y tierras. La razón de esa avidez era el acceso a lo que nunca podrían tener en España: títulos de nobleza, riquezas y respeto. Incluso Hernán Cortés tuvo grandes litigios para que se le reconociera su título de Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca. Para más contexto, estamos hablando de una época en la que los comerciantes ya tienen poder, porque el feudalismo va en declive. El renacimiento está en sus comienzos, con lo que el marco mental del europeo común y corriente es una mezcla de fascinación, miedo y desprecio por lo desconocido o lo nuevo que ofrezca el Nuevo Mundo.

 

En descargo del rey de España. Es de destacar, Carlos I y sus sucesores fueron aconsejados de que las colonias no sometieran a los indígenas. De hecho, hay reales decretos en los que se protege a los indígenas de los abusos. Al final de la Colonia en las Cortes de Cadiz donde se hace la primera constitución española, se establece la igualdad jurídica entre españoles, criollos, mestizos e indígenas. En cualquier caso, cuando estás a medio mundo de distancia con viajes de meses entre España y América, al final la administración es totalmente tomada por los virreyes y la aplicación de reales decretos ni se toma en cuenta.

 

En resumen, la pedida de disculpas a un colectivo o a individuos por hechos históricos que incluso ni siquiera vivieron, no es más que un acto de revancha por una idea infantil de lo que es la historia y de cómo debe ser usada. No se puede juzgar el pasado, porque no tenemos el mismo marco mental. No se puede juzgar a toda una sociedad, porque no todos en ella son iguales. No se puede señalar a un individuo que ni tuvo vela en el entierro. Y no se pueden cargar responsabilidades a siglos de distancia. En dado caso todos nos tendríamos que pedir perdón a nosotros mismos por los crímenes que se han cometido desde que el homo sapiens apareció, pero tal ejercicio así como el que está intentando López Obrador, es incluso perjudicial, porque la historia deja de tener un uso aleccionador: en vez de construir el futuro desde el presente cuidando de no repetir el pasado, nos estancamos en el pasado.

 

En el caso de AMLO, el uso de este recurso pueril no es un afán sincero pero equivocado, sino es un recurso mañoso para desviar la atención de la verdad: AMLO y su gobierno no han hecho casi nada relevante en este tiempo que lleva gobernando: porque gobernar es difícil y no es estar de campaña.

On the mental distress in life (and in academia)

In the past year, I began to read experiences of a climate leader about mental distress. At the very beginning, I found them very illuminating. However, the passage of time brought something else to my shore on Facebook, something like a red tide.

Mental awareness is an important topic that affects us. Our society tends to discard it as something ridiculous or that needs concealment. However, even in a better setting imaginable, life is a complicated game in which we often suffer. «Life should be smooth and polite» is the premise of this climate leader. However, this premise enters in conflict with the observation made before, derived from the very complexity of the problem of living a life.

For example, this climate leader says that to improve the discipline of children, we should reason with children. Right! However, if we remember our childhoods, we can recall that sometimes we resourced to extortion or even to disobedience to pass over the limits our parents established. One can say that was because our parents were inflexible. Still in my case, although my mother always let me know the logic of the limits, I tried several times to overcome the rules. When that happened, my mother applied the correctives: from spanking to a disregard of my tantrums.

Childhood is training for adulthood. Logic is something in our factory software, but we need to learn how to use it. We learn that in childhood with other skills. Therefore, the problems that this climate leader brings to the discussion come from a spoiled childhood. Nonetheless, the solutions that she defends are wrong.

She tells us that academia is cruel, or at least mean, with young or early career scientists. I can confirm that. You can suffer disappointment or even depression, and also lose your idealistic picture of science. Inevitably, science is a human activity in which selfishness and envy dwell. In spite of that, there is also the need to learn how to be a scientist, and sometimes we need to accept that others have far more experience than us. This acceptance is not easy. Perhaps we need a striking call for the return to reason or a shocking review.

Yes, when the attacks are irrational, something is not going right. In that case, we need to denounce the behaviour or ignore it, if possible. Still, it is not a surprise the scientific career, as in life, we need to suffer a bit. If things were easy, they would not be worth.

I criticise heavily the arguments of this climate leader, from the vantage position of an early career scientist, not from a hater stance.

A tale about México: a guide to understand what is happening there (part III)

Revolution era (1911-1940)

Porfirio Díaz continuous reelections, clientelism and the poverty, ushered México again in restlessness. Francisco Madero opposed vocally to reelectionism and injustice of Díaz’s regime. He founded a movement that claimed for free elections to obtain a real democracy and social justice. This resulted in a short-term armed conflict that ended with the resignation of then-old General Díaz, who left for the exile in France. Madero was elected president with 90% of the votes in the first modern free elections.

However, the idealism and inexperience of Madero, and because the movement that he lead was composed of several other movements, the dream of a México with justice saw the dusk. Once Madero was murdered in 1914 by one general (with the support of USA ambassador) the havoc began. The armed revolution should have ended in 1911 with very few casualties, but the power lust extended it from 1914 until 1920. The war continued as the warlords betrayed each other to seize the power from the others. The result was a bloodshed, the increase of extreme poverty in the country, and the rise of local overlords.

From 1920 and on, the revolution left the battle field, although petty warlords continued to fight each other in certain regions. However, the pacification of the country came through the former methods: clientelism that derived in corruption, but dressed as agrarian socialism mixed with industrial capitalism. The revolution had failed completely.

In fact, the party that ruled México until the 2000, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI, Institutional Revolutionary Party) was founded as the state party in the 1920s. Other parties existed to appease part of the population (mostly the middle class). But the regime did not allow them to win the presidency or have majority in the mexican congress.

Once the famous General Lázaro Cárdenas, who nationalised the petroleum resources, left presidency in 1940, the revolution that meant involution, ended.

A tale about México: a guide to understand what is happening there (part II)

Independent era (1821-1911)

The existence of México as an independent country is recent. But the culture that its society developed during the 300-year colonial period was the basis for the identity of the new country. Additionally, the ‘new’ mexicans recalled the prehispanic past in a nationalistic way. Therefore, during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the archaeology developed.

In a period of less than hundred years, from 1821-1910 we had a large quantity of governments and instability. The social movements, that were created around a “caudillo” (leader), influenced much of the history of México in this period. Important was the struggle between conservative and liberal parties. Also the interventions of other countries in México meant an impossibility to settle strong foundations for the government.

First came the Mexican-American war (1845-1848). Before this war, USA citizens began to settle in the Tejas territory at the north of México with the permission of mexican goverment. In 1836, they claimed independence from México to create the Republic of Texas. This lead to the Mexican-American war and the outcome was the loss of 50% of mexican territory as part of the armistice: all the southern USA from Texas to California.

Second was the French Intervention (1861-1867) in which France briefly created a french-managed state in America. USA saw that as a threat and helped Benito Juárez’s republican government with weapons, in exchange of future right of free crossing for USA troops through the mexican territory (Tratado McLane-Ocampo). Finally the french were ousted and the emperor Maximilian I of México was executed, by direct orders of Benito Juárez.

Maximilian was supported by France and the mexican conservative party invited him to establish the second Mexican Empire. His dead is particularly sad, since some of the emperor’s policies during his short term in office were as progressive as Juárez’s or even more, to the point that the church and the conservative party had second thoughts about Maximilian and removed their support. I only wonder what kind of country México would be today, if Juárez united with Maximilian to form a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy and the support from the Habsburgs and Europe counteracted the ominous influence of the United States of America.

Returning to the real history, general unrest apparently ended in 1876 when a war hero, General Porfirio Díaz, took the power. He remained in office from 1876-1880 and later from 1884-1911. This was the first time, since the independence, that México had something similar to peace. This state of unsettling peace accelerated the development of the country, such as the transport infrastructure: remarkable was the railway network.

However, this advance and modernisation was at the expense of social stability. This government established clientelism, favoured a elite and enforced peace with terror against any that dare to oppose. This made the poor even poorer and this meant hidden slavery in some cases. Poor people were forgotten because of the continuous unrest and when the development began, they were not counted in.

A tale about México: a guide to understand what is happening there (part I)

It might be interesting to tell you, europeans, what is happening in México. We are humans as you, but our society raised in a completely different way as yours. Whereas your societies consolidated, enriched and developed using the resources that you traded or conquered by force from other people, ours raised from the ashes of the destruction of the aztec empire by an expedition from Spain.

Colonial era (1521-1821)

Aztecs’ downfall came from the hatred their empire gathered by years of ruthless dominance over its neighbours. When europeans arrived in 1519 from the near and recently-settled Cuba, the oppressed peoples saw the opportunity and allied with Hernán Cortés’s small expedition. This alliance allowed that a small army destroyed an empire.

With the demise of the aztec empire in 1521, a combination of unintended extermination by disease and the ambition of the spaniard soldiery to make fortune in the new lands, given their miserable lives in the Iberian peninsula, meant the end of the prehispanic social order. Near 90% of native population died in the wars or by disease. Large chunks of the native cultures were wiped out by religious zealotry, but others preserved part of native culture because of genuine interest.

In striking difference to the english thirteen colonies, the traditions and genes of the spaniards and the natives mixed freely. The explanation is the purpose of the colonisation. Religious unrest in England made some communities to flee and establish the colonies and, later, the expectation of profits from tobacco and other plantations were the motivations. Therefore, mixture of cultures was not the priority and most of the people that came, was not open to that.

Spaniards came with a desire of richness, but also to live there and were slightly more prone to understand other cultures. In fact, the Kingdom of Spain had protected the native population by decree. However, that stopped neither the ruthless dominance of the spaniards nor the native efforts to preserve their traditions by covering their gods with european clothes and faces. The Viceroyalty of New Spain, as the region was called, developed a culture of its own. A caste system was established, probably by the society itself, which is the seed of México’s present discrimination problem, that I will discuss later.

One thing about the caste system was official: there were public service positions that the spaniards that were born in the Viceroyalty can never occupy, e.g. the position of Viceroy. Gradually, this issue accumulated resentment and these spaniards, called ‘criollos’, were behind the revolt that began on 15 September 1810 and ended in 21 September 1821 with the independence of the Viceroyalty from Spain. Here is when México was born.

Heroísmo prefabricado.

Una vez que ha pasado el transitorio ante el forzamiento social que representó el terremoto del 19 de septiembre, han empezado ya salir a la luz que tan reales o ficticios fueron las historias que se construyeron a lo largo de la semana.

La cuestión es que en el imaginario colectivo, el heroísmo del 85 se ha consolidado casi como un recuerdo épico. Y eso mismo ha hecho que una generación de jóvenes quiera emular ese heroísmo divinizado, aunque la tarea no ha sido de las dimensiones que en el 85: seamos claros, la verdad es que el sismo del 19 de septiembre del 2017 no es comparable en destrucción y pérdidas humanas al del 85 en la Ciudad de México.

Los medios han inflamado eso, en particular Televisa, pero en realidad todos. Han echado mano de sus clásicas frases hechas que claman por una solidaridad y heroísmo característicos de los mexicanos —probablemente adaptadas a la era de las redes sociales— cosa que en realidad no existe. Eso es instrumentalizar y magnificar la tragedia, para clamar por unos valores nacionales inexistentes.

Lo que sí existe, es la empatía que empuja a ayudar y que a los que nos es imposible ayudar de una forma más directa nos hace sentir impotencia. Eso no es heroico, sino humano. Y es exactamente lo que los medios y el gobierno no son: humanos. Es una reacción ante un forzamiento, que con el tiempo terminará por pasar.

No es necesario citar la telenovela de Frida Sofía para estar conscientes de la dimensión del tinglado. La mayor y más escalofriante prueba es que esas cámaras y esos apoyos no están en las comunidades de Morelos, Puebla y Oaxaca, ni tampoco en las comunidades arrasadas por el sismo anterior: no es sino hasta que hay algo que puede servir como símbolo para el político o el medio de comunicación (para vender, convencer o distraer), que es utilizado sin piedad ni respeto: si hay apoyos en esas regiones no es gracias a ellos y, en algunos casos, a pesar de ellos.

Y para ver que tan irrespetuosos son, tanto una parte de la población como los políticos y medios, siempre tendremos a los que se autocuelgan la medalla.

Un ejemplo es el del político, léase López Obrador, que ante el descaro de los diputados y senadores que no dan un centavo dice que su partido dará recursos que tiene asignados, para los afectados. Eso es dos cosas: (i) usar una tragedia para demostrar que se es diferente a los demás (lo cuál ya es igual de bajo que pedir dinero para dar, siendo que se tiene) y (ii) bajo la cobertura de ayudar, empezar la compra de votos.

Lo que debería exigirse es que se dejara a los partidos sin financiamiento alguno para este año y el que sigue. Y que ese dinero fuera administrado por la sociedad civil para realizar las tareas de reconstrucción, para que no haya promesas incumplidas ni compra de votos. Y que de paso, si los políticos quieren donar, que lo hagan de su bolsa, no de los recursos que se les entregan y vienen de los impuestos de los ciudadanos.

Lo triste es ver que la empatía y la humanidad en una parte no despreciable de la población sólo durará a lo mucho dos semanas más. Cuando todos esos estén saciados, con las solapas cargadas de medallas de papel aluminio, y retornen a su vida miserable desprovista de empatía y/o a luchar a favor de sus padrinos favoritos de la mafia de la política (incluído el Peje) y los verdaderos héroes sean olvidados, volveremos a ver que la sociedad mexicana, vuelve a estar en las vías de una corrupción completa… muy a pesar de los que no queremos vivir en la mentira que es la sociedad actual.

Acerca de las luces de terremoto y la estupidez de los medios.

Estoy muy decepcionado del público en general y de los servicios de información mexicanos e internacionales, ya que es claro que la calidad de razonamiento en las informaciones que dan es pobre, por decir lo menos.

Y me estoy refiriendo acerca de lo que se ha dicho de las luces que se vieron en los cielos de la Ciudad de México, y en otras ciudades también, durante el sismo de la noche del 7 de Septiembre de 2017.

Como es natural, mucha gente empezó a hablar de los extraños destellos y, como es usual, empezó la controversia aceca de qué eran.

Cuando ví los videos, no me quedó duda de lo que eran, así como a un colega (el Dr. Bradford S. Barret). Pero otras explicaciones que se han dado van desde lo estúpido (pero normal en una sociedad que se pudre, como la cultura humana en la actualidad) origen extraterrestre hasta la aparentemente racional explicación de las luces de terremoto, que ha sido la elegida por los medios normales (y por los »expertos» también) como la buena.

Sin embargo, tengo que decir que —así como otras estupideces hechas por los medios— las luces de terremoto son poco probables en el caso de la Ciudad de México, o cualquier otra ciudad grande en la que se hayan visto las luces. Y la razón es el origen de las luces de terremoto, el cuál es también un fenómeno que aún está a debate, dado que la mayor parte de la evidencia es anecdótica.

El origen de las luces de terremoto está en las propiedades de las rocas y otros materiales que, debido a su composición y estructura cristalina, generan electricidad cuando son deformados por esfuerzos externos: éste es el llamado efecto piezoeléctrico. Un ejemplo de substancia piezoeléctrica es el cuarzo, que se usa, por ejemplo, para mantener la sincronización del oscilador electrónico de un reloj de cuarzo (si no sabían porque sus relojes decían quartz ahora ya lo saben).

No obstante, los materiales piezoeléctricos no generan voltajes grandes, a menos que la deformación sea grande. ¿Por qué necesitaríamos voltajes grandes para las luces de terremoto? Simple: la longitud de onda es una medida de la energía de una onda electromagnética. La luz es una onda electromagnética. La luz visible (y en particular el verde y el azul) necesitan grandes cantidades de energía para ser producidas, dado que se necesitan excitar electrones, en éste caso de los gases atmosféricos, que están más ligados a los átomos. De ésta forma, cuando éstos electrones caigan al estado base, emitirán un fotón de alta energía que nosotros percibiremos como luz azul o verde.

Ejemplos de éstos fenómenos de alta energía son las auroras, en las que la energía es provista por partículas cargadas provenientes del Sol que viajan a velocidades cercanas a las de la luz hasta que son atrapadas por el campo magnético de la Tierra. En los polos donde la intensidad del campo es menor, las partículas de alta energía pueden excitar los gases atmosféricos en las alturas, que al regresar al estado base dan origen a las auroras. Las auroras son bastante débiles y para fotografiarlas hay que usar exposiciones largas con aperturas grandes y luz ambiente escasa.

Por tanto, para luces de terremoto visibles, se necesitarían grandes cantidades de energía que fueran consistentes con el color y la brillantez deseada. La pregunta es, si asumimos que la piezoelectricidad de un terremoto puede producir esas energías, como transferimos la energía a los gases atmosféricos. La respuesta que yo daría es que necesitas un mecanismo como el de los rayos: la diferencia de potencial eléctrico entre la atmósfera y la superficie crece tanto que el aire se vuelve conductor y la carga eléctrica producida por la piezoelectricidad fluye a la atmósfera, aunque no sea posible ver la descarga eléctrica como en un rayo.

El problema ahora es: cuanto tiempo puedes sostener la transferencia. Y eso dependerá en que tanta carga da como resultado el efecto piezoeléctrico de las rocas bajo las condiciones de sismo y cuán eficiente es la transferencia a la atmósfera.

Es por ello que las luces de terremoto son tan controversiales en la comunidad científica: a pesar de que hay un posible mecanismo de origen, la cantidad de energía necesaria para disparar y mantener el mecanismo es tan grande. Y nadie que yo sepa ha estudiado sistemáticamente el tema de las luces de terremoto (y sería necesario hacerlo así como otro efecto, llamado sonoluminiscencia). Toda la evidencia es anecdotica, como dije antes, o por otra parte, se han identificado erróneamente otros fenómenos como luces de terremoto: lo que nos lleva nuevamente a las luces en la Ciudad de México.

Como primer punto. La Ciudad de México está a 700km del epicentro. Luego, la deformación de las rocas en las cercanías es menor a la que habrá sucedido en Chiapas, por ejemplo. Por tanto, la producción de piezoelectricidad debe ser menor, lo que significaría luces de terremoto considerablemente menos intensas.

Segundo. Hemos visto que las auroras necesitan de una fuente de energía extraordinaria, las partículas cargadas del Sol, y aún así son tan débiles que es necesario usar exposiciones largas para fotografiarlas. A menos de que el lector pudiera decirme que, en el evento sísmico, estamos expuestos a radiación de alta energía proveniente del interior de la Tierra y me explique el origen de tal radiación y por qué la mayoría de la gente no está muerta por esta exposición, podemos concluir que las luces de terremoto son improbables como origen de lo que se ve en los videos.

Tercero. Los videos muestran destellos brillantes ubicados en la superficie, demasiado brillantes para ser de origen piezoeléctrico. Más aún, se pueden ver las reflexiones en las nubes, las cuales son iluminadas intensamente, lo que indica que la intensidad de la fuente es muy grande para una luz de terremoto (dado que las auroras no son tan brillantes y en cuyo caso las personas se freirían por la radiación que tendría que producir las luces).

Cuarto y último. Conforme el tiempo pasa y los destellos se detienen, uno no necesita ser brillante, pero si buen observador, para notar que la ciudad se ve más oscura que antes del terremoto: la infraestructura de iluminación ha sufrido daños. No es complicado hacer las conexiones y descartar los OVNIs y las luces de terremoto.

Pero no importa lo que yo diga, la mayoría de la gente querrá creer en OVNIs, en luces de terremoto o en alguna otra explicación intrincada y complicada. Ésto, debido a que los medios lo dijeron y a que es demasiado aburrido tener explicaciones mundanas y, sobre todo, pensar racionalmente. Prefieren sentir que vieron algo poderoso o atemorizarse con lo desconocido, que reconocer que las cosas mundanas pasan.

Y no lo entiendo: Que la roca se doble, que la Tierra tiemble y oscile, no es suficiente maravilla para ellos?

On Earthquake lights and stupidity of media.

I am greatly disappointed of the general public and the mexican and international information services, since it is clear to me that quality of reasoning in the informations they give is quite poor.

What I am referring is about the lights that have been seen from the skies of Mexico City, and I am sure other cities alike, during the seismic event of the late night of September 7th, 2017.

As is obvious a lot of people told about the strange lightnings and, as usual, there began the boiling controversy of what the lightnings were.

When I saw the videos, for me was crystal clear as for other colleague (Dr. Bradford S. Barret). But other explanations that were put forward ranged from the senseless (but normal in a rotting society, like our global human culture) extraterrestrial origin to the quasireasonable explanation of earthquake lights, which is the one that is being chosen by media (and I think »experts» also) as the good one.

However, I will say that —like other stupid things done by the media— earthquake lights are unlikely in Mexico City, or other sizable city where lightnings have been seen. And the reason is the origin of the earthquake lights, which is also a debated phenomena, since there is no conclusive evidence far more than anecdotal.

Origin of earthquake lights lays on the properties of rocks (and other materials), due to their composition and crystalline structure, to generate electricity when they are deformed by stress or strain: this is the so-called piezoelectric effect. One example of piezoelectric substance is the quartz, which is used to maintain in time the electronic oscillator of a type of clock: the quartz clock.

However, piezoelectric materials can not generate great voltages, unless the deformation is quite large. Why we need large values of voltage for the Earthquake lights? Simple: wavelenght is a measure of the energy of an electromagnetic wave. Light is a electromagnetic wave. Visible light (and particularly green and blue) needs lots of energy to be produced, since for that we need to excite electrons, in this case in atmospheric gases, that are more bounded to the atoms and, in consequence, their decay to their basis state results in the emission of a photon of higher energy that we perceive as blue or green light.

Examples of this high energy phenomena are the auroras, where the energy is provided by electrically charged particles from the Sun that are traveling at speeds near that of light until they are trapped by the geomagnetic field. In the poles the geomagnetic field weakens and the high energy particles can excite the atmospheric gases of high altitudes and these return to base state giving origin to what we see as the auroras, which are very dim and for capturing an aurora in a photo, you need more than five seconds expositions and full aperture, and obviously not too bright ambient light.

Therefore, for a visible earthquake light you would need large amounts of energy consistent with the color and brightness you want. The question now is, assuming that piezoelectricity under earthquake stress and strain could produce enough energy, how we transfer it to the atmospheric gases? The answer I can give is that you need a mechanism like that of lightning: electric potential difference between land and atmosphere grows large enough that the air begins to act as a conductor and the electric charge from the piezoelectricity goes to the atmosphere, although is not enough to get a visible electrical discharge as in a lightning.

The problem now is: how much time you can sustain this transfer? That would depend on how large is the yield of piezoelectric effect of the rocks under the earthquake conditions and how efficient is the transfer to the atmosphere.

That is why Earthquake lights are so controversial in scientific community: in spite of a plausible mechanism of origin (emission by atmospheric gases), the amount of energy needed to trigger and maintain the mechanism is so large and no one, that I know, has studied systematically this topic (is in such a need of being investigated as the so-called sonoluminiscence). All the evidence is anecdotal as I have said or are other phenomena misunderstood as Earthquake lights, which leads us to the Mexico City lights again.

As a first point. Mexico City was 700 km apart from the epicenter. Thus, the deformation of rocks in the vicinity is way lesser than in Chiapas, for example. Therefore, the possible yield of piezoelectric effect is lesser, that would less intense Earthquake lights.

Second. We have learned that auroras have an incredible input of energy, the high energy particles of the Sun, and yet they are so dim that photos of them need long exposure times. Unless you tell me that, in the event of an earthquake, we are exposed to high energy radiation coming from inside the Earth and explain me the mechanism of origin of this radiation and the reason why most of the people is not death, then it is unlikely that Earthquake lights is what is seen in the videos.

Third. Videos show bright and land-based lightnings, way too bright for a piezoelectricity-induced lightning. Moreover, you can see the reflections on the clouds, which are lighted brightly, which means that the intensity of the origin lights is overwhelmingly large for an Earthquake light (given that the upper limit for the brightness is an aurora, in which case persons would be fried by the radiation intensity producing the lights).

Fourth and last. As time passes and lightnings stop, one needs not to be bright, but a good observer, to see that the city is darker than before the earthquake: light infrastructure has suffered some damage. It is not too complicated to make the connections and discard the UFOs and the Earthquake lights.

But, no matter what I say, most of the people will want to believe in UFOs, Earthquake lights or some other intricate and overly complicated explanation. Because media said it and because it is too boring to have mundane explanations and, above everything, to use reason and logic. They prefer to feel as they saw something powerful or to get frightened by the unknown, than recognise that mundane things pass.

And I do not understand: That the rock folds, the Earth trembles and oscillates, are not enough marvels for them?