THE NEW HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE

by ERNANI SARTORI

The New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by me, essentially represents the direct influence of certain human activities on the natural water cycle and thus on the climate.  

These and other human interferences on the climate do not happen by the way that the “science” of the “global warming caused by the CO2” thinks and commands the humankind destinies. Such group of people thinks that the carbon dioxide is responsible for bad climates and bad behaviors of the atmosphere such as global warming with negligible temperatures of 1,5 °C or 2,0 °C, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. Ridiculous! No one gas has power or physical properties to cause all of this. Every atmospheric event or behavior has its own causes and effects, different from one another and everything is explained by the physics, a thing that the pseudoscience is not able to do.       

And because such “science” has a theoretical background extremely limited and weak, it would never discover the New Hydrological Cycle and other issues of the atmosphere and planet behaviors.

Up to now, all the literature and understanding by the entire world says that evaporation is the only source of water for the formation of clouds and rain. Thus, equating this we have the natural water cycle as it became understood:   

Precipitation = Evaporation                                                            (1)

However, we need only to verify the constitution and the physics of the planet to find immediately a basic error on such understanding and statement: the sublimation from the glaciers to the air was not included. Such addition of water vapor in the atmosphere is not negligible and at least it had to be included in the theoretical considerations, but this was never done. Therefore, equation (1) should be written as

Precipitation = Evaporation + Sublimation                                    (2)

But the New Hydrological Cycle does not refer to this correction.

The New Hydrological Cycle refers to the fact that if I throw a drop of water into the air, a drop of water will come back and then equation (2) becomes

Precipitation = Evaporation + Sublimation + One drop                 (3)     

that is, it is clear that certain human activities can yes interfere and modify the natural water cycle as well as other natural cycles and, thus, to change the climate. Obviously, one drop does not change anything, but, only to give an example, the consumption of water by one coal fossil fuel power plant of 600 MW is about 3.5 l/MWh or 35,000 l/min or more than 50 million liters of water per day.

These data also show that this is the amount of water that only one power plant withdraws from rivers and lakes and thus dry them. And these values do not include the amount of water used for refrigeration of the systems that is “recycled”. Imagine how much water all of these power plants throw into the air around the world in every instant. And a nuclear power plant throws about 70 % more water than a fossil fuel power plant. Add to these values the amount of water that the millions or billions of industries, vehicles, irrigations, forest fires, burnings, etc, throw into the air every instant around the world. It is obvious that the natural water cycle and other natural cycles are no longer the same. All of this needed to be identified and clarified, but the “science” on global warming and the hydrology were not able to do.

     

Therefore, there is more water, more heat and more particles in the air in less time for the formation of more clouds, more rain, more floods, more droughts, and more interference on the climate more rapid and more irregular in amounts, times and spaces than the natural cycles can do, thus altering the natural climates. Clouds are not formed only by water, but by water, aerosols and heat, just the ingredients that the human activities cited above throw into the air.

The pseudoscience does not see such interferences and disappears with this entire and enormous amount of water, aerosols and heat and their effects inserted into the air directly by certain human activities.

Learn much more through the following articles: 

Sartori E (2012). “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences”. Open J. of Applied Sciences 2(4):302–318. 
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=25758

Sartori E (2015). “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works”. Open J. of Applied Sciences 5(4): 151–168. 
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=55957

Sartori E (2018). “The Arctic Ice Melting Confirms the New Theory”. Journal of Water and Climate Change. 
https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/doi/10.2166/wcc.2018.153/64226/The-Arctic-ice-melting-confirms-the-new-theory.

A VERY FUNNY “SCIENCE”

A few days ago a website from a journal of the “global” warming folks published an article, in which these people say, as always, that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor and then this is why more floods happen. Thus, these folks want to say that temperature creates water. Yes, a warmer air holds more water vapor, but it holds more mass of water only if there is more mass of water vapor besides the fact that temperature does not create water as well as no other thing creates water! And a warmer atmosphere does not lead to more evaporation, because higher air temperatures DECREASE evaporation, contrary to what the “global” warming “science” thinks and states. The theory and science of these people are extremely weak even in basic issues and all of this published in their famous journals. And these people also see only the natural hydrological cycle e don’t see that more fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, industries, vehicles, etc, throw into the air millions of tons of water vapor in every instant around the world and all of this huge amount of water must come back and comes back irregularly in amount and in spatial and temporal distribution, as the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by me, demonstrates. Thus, I added the following comment on that website:      

“A very funny science

Your “science” on “global” warming says that higher air temperatures create water and this creates floods. Then, in this case, the Sahara is the most humid place in the world, isn’t it? Very funny! Since this concept is one of your most fundamental support and “dogmas” and it is completely erroneous, all the “global” warming ideology does not sustain. Only the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by me, explains why have had more floods and also more droughts (not for 2100) in many parts of the world. Read the papers “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors” and “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works” to learn the correct physical principles of the planet’s behavior and much more.  The completely empirical knowledge of your “science” would never discover the new water cycle and the true atmospheric behavior. Continue on your way and with your own consensus, arrogance and mafia organization to continue damaging the world and the humanity”.

CHALLENGE

One of the dogmas of the pseudoscience on global warming caused by the CO2 says that evaporation increases with the air temperature increase. I challenge all of such researchers and “modelers” to prove mathematically that the evaporation increases with the air temperature increase. Read the papers “Climate Change: How the Atmosphere Really Works”, “Solar Still vs. Solar Evaporator: A Comparative Study Between their Thermal Behaviors” and “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors” to discover how the evaporation really works according to the air temperature and to many other environmental parameters.  

PLAGIARISM OR IDEA THEFT AND DISHONEST STATEMENTS

Elsevier is a giant publisher that has a long speech against plagiarism. But acts against it only when the plagiarism happens with other publishers (e.g., Retraction or http://alexexch.org/File/2012003301/En/2169.pdf). The paper by Poos and Varju (2017) published in Energy Procedia (Elsevier) contains plagiarisms, scientific errors and dishonest statements.    

Furthermore, this paper is essentially the same work (same text, same figures, same equations, same system, same problems) as the one by Poos and Varju (2016) published in other conference and by Orvos, Szabo and Poos (2016).  

The main problems are that Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and orvos et al (2016) attributed to themselves a discovery and development made by Sartori as well as they also made many experimental and theoretical errors, copied entire sentences from Sartori (2000) without referencing them, and considered that evaporation within tubular systems is equal to the evaporation from free water surfaces. All of these situations also correspond to a very weak review process.   

Let’s see:

1) The authors state that “Sartori (2000) established three different cases for the evaporation rate in terms of temperature-based driving forces. This theory can be supplemented to four categories, where the evaporation rate can be written to these cases:”. The “four” cases referred by the authors are:

a) TW > TA    The water temperature is higher than the air temperature [evaporation]

b) TW < TA    The water temperature is lower than the air temperature [evaporation]

c) TW = TA    The water temperature is equal to the air temperature [?]

d) TD > TW The air dew point temperature is higher than the water temperature [condensation]

Sartori, in his theory published at least in Sartori (1987; 1989; 1991; 1996; 2000; 2003; 2012), did not consider only three cases of evaporation! When Sartori considered the evaporation according to TW < TA and according to TW > TA he considered the lower and upper limits of temperatures for evaporation, besides the condensation when TD > TW. Thus, if the evaporation happens from TW < TA up to when TW > TA, it is obvious that it also happens in between these limits, that is, when TW = TA (but for this case a further condition is required in order to know what happens, as shown by Sartori). Without considering this additional condition, as Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) did, the case for TW = TA alone is incomplete and scientifically erroneous. Sartori (2000) considered this additional condition explicitly for the case when TW = TA and RH (relative humidity) = 100%, being this the only case when the evaporation is zero. In other words for this case, Sartori correctly considered the evaporation that happens when TW = TA and 0 ≤ RH ≤ 100%. Therefore, due to the determining influence of the RH, to consider the evaporation when TW = TA alone without the information from the RH denotes the Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) incorrect understanding of the evaporation process. When TW = TA and RH < 100%, this is the same case as TW > TA. Thus, the authors did not create nor measured another case! Also, according to the erroneous authors’ thinking, there would be a case of evaporation for every degree and fraction of temperature, which makes no sense. And Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and Orvos et al (2016) cited the reference Sartori (2000) where the condition TW = TA is demonstrated, but the authors intentionally did not assign this case to Sartori.

Thus, the authors cannot assume as their authorship a fourth case of evaporation, because this situation had already been considered and demonstrated by Sartori correctly. Hence, Poos and Varju and Orvos et al's corresponding statements are characterized as plagiarism or idea theft.     

2) The authors’ experimental system is very similar to the one made by Raimundo et al (2014), and both do not correspond to evaporation from free water surfaces and under natural environments. On the contrary, both correspond to evaporation that happened within tubular systems with artificial flows and conditions. The heat and mass processes within tubular systems are affected by the walls of the system and do not correspond to those that happen in a free atmosphere. The internal flow is much different than an external one, also because the boundary layer conditions are very different between them. The flow within tubes is confined by the surfaces, while an external flow is not. A flow of air within a tube does not represent and reproduce the flow and the heat and mass exchanges and conditions that happen in a free atmosphere. A free water surface means a surface that is exposed to the ambient air, which one is not the case of the authors’ experiments as well as those by Raimundo et al (2014). Thus, the paper and the results cannot represent the evaporation from real free water surfaces, but Poos and Varju attribute their work as if it was valid for free water surfaces. Raimundo et al (2014) did the same.    

Sartori (2012) compared his theoretical equation for the fully turbulent air flow in forced convection with the evaporations from real and true free water surfaces of different sizes and conditions as well as compared it with the corresponding results from several well-known empirical formulas (obtained only through particular experiments, which are not valid generically – see Sartori 2006), and the Sartori equation showed to be the most accurate with very high accuracy.

3) There are many shortcomings with the measurements and results.

3.1) Many results in Table 2 present a positive evaporation when in the reality the physical conditions show that there was condensation (‘negative’ evaporation) of the humid air onto the water surface, because the dew point temperatures Tdp of the humid air were higher than the water surface temperatures Tf, as shown in the table below:   

Run	TG	Tdp	Tf
14	50.0	28.21	27.30
20	49.9	27.67	27.60
21	50.0	34.42	25.10
27	49.8	27.70	22.70
29	50.7	31.86	26.70

This lack of accuracy generates lack of confidence on the experimental tests and results as well as on the whole work, because we can not trust on it. 

3.2) The authors said that “Its maximum volume is 5 dm3”, which is equal to 5 liters or 5 kg. So, how there were evaporations of 5.652 and 5.528 kg/m2h?

4) The work by Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) and its results cannot be confused with evaporation from a free water surface under a natural environment, because:  

4.1) Air temperatures of 50 °C and relative humidities of 20–30% are common for deserts, but not for humid places.

4.2) The authors’ result of the order of 5.652 kg/m2h is an absurdity! True free water surfaces produce such magnitudes during a day, not during an hour. For the authors’ average water surface temperature of 40 °C, such value corresponds to a released heat of 3,777 W/m2, which is 2.8 times higher than the solar constant of 1,366 W/m2, i.e., their “free water surface” releases more energy than receives from the Sun, which is impossible and a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.   

5) In the Conclusions: “In this paper, a critical review on several well-known equations employed for the calculation of evaporation rate from free water surfaces has been carried out. Both empirical and theoretical working formulas have been analysed. Since up to now there was not consensus on which equations were better to employ, a large scattering of evaporation rates has resulted”. These sentences were entirely copied from Sartori (2000) and not referenced! Another clear example of plagiarism!

6) Besides the plagiarism referred in the topic (5), the authors did not “carried out a critical review on several well-known equations employed for the calculation of the evaporation rate from free water surfaces” as well as no analyses were made on “Both empirical and theoretical working formulas”. There are no data, no equations, no tables, no graphs and no comments showing such comparisons and analyses. The authors only made a limited survey of references (most of them taken from Sartori 2000) and did not show and did not analyze and compare objectively the corresponding equations. So, since no result of this type was obtained by Poos and Varju, the authors are not authorized to state that “…a large scattering of evaporation rates has resulted”. These are others of the authors’ fake and not scientific statements!

7) The equations regarding references 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21 and 24 as they appear in Table 1 of Poos and Varju (2016) were not derived by the corresponding authors, but were converted to SI Units by Sartori (2000). Nobody is authorized to present these equations in this converted way without crediting them to Sartori (2000). Some of these equations gave exhaustive work to convert their coefficients, but Poos and Varju (2016) did not give the deserved credit and for this case did not cite Sartori (2000) where they took from these converted equations. This is not an honest way to make science!      

8) The authors say that “Our future plan is to establish an equation system that can describe the phenomenon of evaporation in wide range of interpretation, taking into account the different categories”. The authors made lots of basic and scientific errors and did not show to own a sufficient and correct theoretical and experimental background on evaporation, but presumptuously intend to “establish an equation system valid for wide range of interpretation”. Sartori (2012) equation (recommended for all real free water surfaces) is valid for any real free water surface in forced convection and combined with the parameters for saline waters from Sartori (1991) equation is also valid for any salty free water surface. Sartori equations are also the only ones for evaporation that can obtain the amount of water vapor condensed (dew) onto the water surface. Sartori equations are also the only ones that can be applied to other planet or moon that have liquid water on the surface. And they take into account all of the cases or categories of evaporation.  

9) “In the cases examined, evaporation was not only consequent upon environmental impacts, but it was also assisted by the heat source of the liquid. This case has been discussed deficiently by literature on the description and calculation of evaporation”. Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) don’t know that the water temperature is the final result of all heat and mass interactions of the water body with the environmental conditions and with the physical and thermal characteristics of its container, no matter the type of the heat source. All of this is seen through the texts and equations of the Sartori models and papers on evaporation.  

10) “In the course of our work, evaporation from a liquid surface was examined…”. This statement is not accurate. The authors carried out experiments only with water, not with any other liquid, contrarily to what such statement induces the readers to think. In several parts of the paper the word ‘liquid’ is employed in place of ‘water’, inducing the readers to think that the experimental results are valid for other liquid, which is not true.  

11) The dimensions of the experimental apparatus were not given. 

12) The parameters 'Dm’, ‘a’, ‘M’ and ‘P’ were not defined and the units of qcond and qconv were not given.

13) Some references from Poos and Varju (2016) were withdrawn and the remaining ones were kept in Poos and Varju (2017), but the numbering was kept the same. For example, Sartori [4] in Poos and Varju (2017) in reality is Sartori [3]. 

14) “Sartori (1989) [9] created an equation depending on laminar, transitional and turbulent range”. The correct is “Sartori (1987, 1989, 2000) created equations depending on laminar, turbulent and transitional (or mixed) ranges, respectively”.

I was a reviewer for this paper and commented all the above issues, but the editors for that congress neglected my comments. 

The paper by Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) does not correspond to “high quality conference proceedings”, contrarily to what the journal Energy Procedia states for itself. 

References:

Poos T, Varju E (2017) Dimensionless evaporation from free water surface at tubular artificial flow. EENVIRO 2016, Energy Procedia, V. 112, 366–373. 

Poos T, Varju E (2016) Determination of evaporation rate at free water surface. Conference, Budapest, Hungary.

http://www.epget.bme.hu/docs/Kutatas/Konferencia/expres2016/13_T_Poos,E_Varju_EXPRES_2016.pdf

Raimundo AM, Gaspar AR, Oliveira VM, Quintela DA (2014) Wind tunnel measurements and numerical simulations of water evaporation in forced convection airflow. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, V 86, 28–40.

Sartori E (1987) A Mathematical Model for Predicting Heat and Mass Transfer from a Free Water Surface. Proc. of the ISES Solar World Congress, Hamburg, Germany, 3160–3164.

Sartori E (1989) Prediction of the Heat and Mass Transfer from a Free Water Surface in the Turbulent Flow Case”. Proc. of the ISES Solar World Congress, Kobe, Japan, V. 3, 2343–2347.

Sartori E (1991) Evaporation from a Free Water Surface with Salt Concentration. Proc. of the ISES Solar World Congress, Denver, USA, 2347–2351.

Sartori E (1996) Solar Still versus Solar Evaporator: A Comparative Study Between their Thermal Behaviors. Solar Energy, V. 56, 199–206.

Sartori E (2000) A Critical Review on Equations Employed for the Calculation of the Evaporation Rate from Free Water Surfaces. Solar Energy, V. 68, 77–89.

Sartori E (2003) Letter to the Editor, Solar Energy, V. 73, No. 6, 481.

Sartori E (2006) Convection Coefficient Equations for Forced Air Flow over Flat Surfaces. Solar Energy, V. 80/9, 1063–1071.

Sartori E (2012) The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences. Open J. of Applied Sciences, V. 2, 302–318.

NOTE ON NOVEMBER 23, 2017: It was hard, extremely hard to get a publication to restore the truth. Initially, it was very difficult to convince the Elsevier representatives to understand that the paper “Dimensionless Evaporation Rate from Free Water Surface at Tubular Artificial Flow”, by Poós and Varju, published in the Journal Energy Procedia, contains plagiarism and/or idea thefts, among other problems. First, the Elsevier representative said that the advisory editor of the journal was contacted and he did not find plagiarism. But I insisted and explained again the complaints. Then, the Elsevier representative said that a software was used to identify plagiarism and it did not detect this. Then, I explained that computer programs do not have self intelligence and thus detect only what was programmed by humans, and in this case even humans did not identify the correct situations. I also said that softwares are not scientists to detect scientific issues, and then I explained once again all the scientific situations. I also requested a Letter to the Editor to be published in the Journal, but the Elsevier representative said that Energy Procedia does not have a section for Letters to the Editor and thus nothing could be done. Then, I contacted the authors directly and they showed a more favorable position for corrections, but not without a great resistance which also brought a long scientific discussion. 

Fortunately, after all difficulties, a satisfactory result was obtained and the following Corrigendum has been published regarding the authors’ article in Energy Procedia:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217349470

Now, those editors are seeing the results of their irresponsibilities. 

THE CLOUDS, THE HUMAN BEING AND THE NEW HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE

Works show that in the last decades the clouds and the precipitation increased while the evaporation decreased in various parts of the world. Having only the knowledge of the natural hydrological cycle which says that the evaporation is the only water source for the formation of clouds and precipitation, empirical researchers from all over the world did not understand such apparent inconsistency and thus named their own incomprehension as “the evaporation paradox”. Obviously, less water cannot generate more water, because this also violates the first law of conservation of mass and energy.

      

Some famous empirical authors having only the empirical and erroneous knowledge about the working principles of the nature and of the atmosphere, tried to understand and to solve such issue, but violated this law and without being aware on this. Even so, such authors and their papers published in the so called “respected” journals such as “Nature” and “Science”, for example, received lots of tributes and prizes from around the world, for having solved absolutely nothing, totally erroneous and with no physical meaning! This also proves that all the world is totally empirical (without theoretical knowledge) in this area, applies a pseudoscience and goes in the wave of any insanity published in such (and in others) journals without notion from the corresponding cluster. Since this issue and this cluster are the same of the issue and cluster of the so called global warming, we verify that the science of the global warming is also a pseudoscience (and I have lots of scientific proofs about this).

       

And it was due to the enormous scientific weakness by such cluster that I discovered the New Hydrological Cycle, in a few seconds. Since less water cannot really generate more water, then it must have another source of water beyond the evaporation and the sublimation of glaciers (the sublimation was never considered for the water cycle) for the atmosphere to be generating more clouds and more precipitation. But, then, which can be the source? It can be only from certain human activities! Humans created certain technologies and activities for their survival and development, but which ones have interfered on the natural cycles and thus on the climate, but not as the pseudoscience of the “global” warming of the CO2 as said to us up to now.          

The IPCC and its cluster of the “global” warming think that the CO2 is the cause of all climatic evils of the planet (risible!) and say that the water vapor does not have anthropogenic cause. Very regrettable! The IPCC considers that 99.99% of the water vapor have natural origin and thus no one deindustrialization could change the amount of this gas in the atmosphere. Totally erroneous! Such IPCC statement clearly identifies the total lack of theoretical knowledge by such cluster. And the issue is not to change completely, but modify something partially. The problem is that the IPCC and its cluster see only the greenhouse effect, the CO2 and the corresponding radiation, but do not know the rest. The atmosphere is not a monolithic block where only one factor at one side can be the cause of all of the phenomena and consequences at the other side. On the contrary, the atmosphere is gaseous which physical processes have multiple causes, variations and consequences. And the heats emitted by certain human sources also cause atmospheric instability, and storms, tornadoes and hurricanes happen only when the atmosphere is unstable.

The evaporation has not been the only source for the formation of clouds and precipitation due to the following reasons: a) the emissions by fossil fuel power plants, industries, vehicles, wildfires, etc, contain tons of water vapor and of aerosols and this intensifies the formation of clouds, because these are formed by condensed water vapor that aggregates around microscopic particles of dust, pollution, forests, biologic, marines, etc, forming the cloud condensation nuclei. So, these fine particles rise and then come down together with the precipitation and I call this cycle as “the dust cycle”; b) the lots of tons of gases emitted to the atmosphere by these sources built by humans are released with very high temperatures and then the air dew point temperature is reached more frequently and thus more water vapor is condensed in less time and more clouds and rain are formed faster and more irregularly around the planet; c) these tons of water vapor emitted by the above mentioned human sources plus those by the nuclear plants, when make contact with cool layers of the atmosphere, condense and more clouds and precipitation are formed. This vapor also increases the air humidity.

These causes explain why the clouds, the precipitation, the humidity and the floods have increased at almost all the world. Only one fossil fuel power plant of 600 MW throws into the air more than 50 millions of liters of water per day and one nuclear power plant throws about 70% more water into the air than a fossil fuel power plant. A work of 2006 shows that the 20^th Century became more humid, and a work of 2005 shows that almost all the planet became more humid in the last decades. Besides other reasons given in the scientific articles by the present author published in 2012 and 2015, these causes also explain why the evaporation has decreased. With more clouds over the planet generated by human beings, the greenhouse effect caused by a great cloud cover reduces the wind (another discovery of mine) and this one reduces the evaporation even more as well as less heat is removed and thus the internal energy of the system increases and then the air temperature also increases and the environment becomes warm and airless.          

The New Hydrological Cycle also explains why can have more droughts. The effects of aerosols in the clouds are twofold: a) they can generate more clouds, as explained above; b) they can also generate fewer clouds, less precipitation and more droughts when the cloud saturation limits for particles are reached. At vast industrialized regions, at dry regions, at great and dry agricultural fields, with wildfires, for example, the solid particles in excess cannot meet sufficient water vapor for the formation of clouds and thus they can accumulate in the atmosphere during a certain time creating a “solid” barrier or cover. And it is well known that the particles travel through countries and continents. For example, an article showed that the pollution matter from China lasts 5 days to arrive to the Arctic.     

That is, these factors from certain human activities are just those that generate clouds, precipitation, floods and droughts and affect the natural cycles including the hydrological one.

Figure 1 shows a recent image of the Earth almost completely covered by clouds. We can see that the planet is really very cloudy. This image also confirms the discoveries by numerous works that experimentally verified the great cloudiness of numerous places of the planet associated with the reduction of the wind and increases of local air temperatures (works described in the papers of 2012 and 2015).   

 Fig. 1 – NOAA/NASA satellite image about 36,000 km from the Earth on January 15, 2017.

A recent report from the United Nations reveals that between 1995 and 2015, 2.3 billion people were affected by floods, which number corresponds to 56% of all the people affected by disasters in relation to the climate – considerably more than any other type of climatic disaster. The report also says that between 1995 and 2015 happened 3,062 floods, which corresponds to 47% of all climatic disasters and to 43% of all natural disasters combined, including earthquakes and volcanoes. Droughts corresponded to 26% and 1.1 billion people; storms to 16% and 660 million people; extreme temperatures to 2% and 94 million people; land sliding and wildfires to 8 million people. The report also alerts to an alarming trend of floods affecting increasing areas and becoming more severe. According to the report, the floods have affected Asia and Africa more than any other continent and put an increasing danger to other places. In South America, for example, 560,000 people were affected by floods in average on each year between 1995 and 2004. In the following decade, 2005–2014, this number increased to 2.2 million people, an increase of almost 4 times. In the first 8 months of 2015, other 820,000 people were affected by floods in the region. In the last months of 2015, rivers that overflowed forced about 100,000 people to leave their homes in Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay.           

All of these real data are more than proof and confirmation of the New Hydrological Cycle, which takes into account the participation of human activities in the increase of the mass of water thrown into the air and returned to the ground. This also proves the Sartori theory that demonstrates the true working principles of the atmosphere and dismantles the absurd insanities by the pseudoscience of the so called global warming caused by the CO2. The new water cycle is working! There is no other physical explanation for the fact of having more water, faster and more irregularly coming back than to have more water, faster and more irregularly going up. Remembering that the belief of the pseudoscience of the climate of the CO2 and its greenhouse effect to justify the increase of floods on the planet, is totally erroneous, absurd and scientifically ingenuous, because temperature does not create water nor any other thing creates water. Only more water up brings more water down!       

- The Physical Principle Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors (2012)

- Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works (2015)

"Warmer atmosphere and enhanced water cycle"

The IOP – Institute of Physics – owns a journal in the environmental area that has a site where comments on the published articles are allowed. Then, a few days ago, I inserted a comment on a paper, but not specifically about the paper itself, but about an erroneous physical concept contained in it which is one of the bases of the empirical “science” on “global” warming or climate changes caused by the CO2. The concept contained in the report is the following: “…whilst the increased rainfall is more likely to be linked to a warmer atmosphere being able to hold more moisture and an enhanced water cycle”.

Since such a concept is totally erroneous, as a scientist I have the duty to make the world to know about the right science, for the benefit of the humankind. Although such an empirical science is based on completely erroneous concepts, even so it commands the world's destinies. And because of this and much more, it doesn’t want to lose its status quo even that this happens for the great damage of the humanity. Therefore, as expected, as they did this another times, this time they removed my comments again. I inserted the comment once more and then they removed it and closed the comments for that article. A true science must be objective, scientific, impersonal, open to new knowledge and this was what I did in my comments. 

Many people and many countries speak and demand about democracy and freedom of expression, but when arrive their turns to prove what they state, they act dictatorially, even if the scope is pure science. And they own all the space and opportunities to make their scientific rebuttals, but they didn’t, showing also not to have scientific arguments. Because of this they closed the comments by the force. 

Unfortunately, the people from the referred empirical area do not practice democracy and true science and continue practicing an erroneous science indefinitely.

Also important to observe is that an institute of physics, which the world expects to have a high science and a high knowledge on physical concepts, only repeat a “science” set up by others on the atmospheric behaviors. And worst, don’t want to correct and to learn for the benefit of the science and of the humankind. And worst, don’t let anyone to show the true science, this also valid for their journals. Such attitudes only strengthen my work and my convictions on my theoretical developments, which ones are also confirmed by experimental data. . 

My comments were the followings:

Title: Warmer atmosphere and enhanced water cycle

The science on climate changes (caused by the CO2 – ridiculous – the multiple atmospheric phenomena are not commanded by a greenhouse effect – mainly by a negligible one) depends almost only on specific observations and on particular methods not linked to the proper theory, is essentially based on erroneous physical concepts, and worst, it does not learn how to improve them and does not use the proper references to make the corrections. The journals of such a science, although are peer-reviewed, also don’t know the true physical principles and disseminate an erroneous science.  

Let’s see the present case.

      1) Yes, a warmer air has the capacity to hold more moisture, but it holds more water only if there is more water to add. That is, it does not mean that such an air has more moisture. If a warm air were sufficient to own more water, the Sahara would be the most humid place in the world! That is, heat does not create water! And such a science violates the first law of thermodynamics.  

      2) It is known that there is an increased rainfall. So, once heat does not create water, where then more rain comes from? Is it from evaporation? Such a science responds ‘yes’ to this question. But the right answer is NO! An increased air temperature alone DECREASES the evaporation! And combined with an increased humidity it decreases even more. And this is confirmed by the measurements which show that in the last decades the evaporation decreased in many parts of the world. Find this information in the papers that report on the evaporation “paradox”. And such ‘paradox’ also does not exist, because such a statement and the corresponding empirical “solutions” refer to other lack of knowledge on the true physical principles. Therefore, there is less evaporation and more rainfall. How is this possible? All of this is correctly explained in depth in Sartori papers.      

    3) Such a science thinks that there is an enhanced water cycle. But the natural or conventional water cycle says that ‘Precipitation = Evaporation’. How is this equality possible if there is less evaporation and more precipitation? How can less evaporation enhance clouds, precipitation and the water cycle? Obviously, this is another lack of understanding on the true physical principles.

    4) Less evaporation cannot really generate more precipitation. But such a science believes in this possibility. Erroneously because it does not read and does not reference the proper papers in order to learn more for the benefit of the humanity. The explanation is that there is a NEW HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE, discovered by Sartori, which solves everything on this matter. The new water cycle establishes that

Precipitation = Evaporation + water added by human activities.

This equation matches the mass balance and explains why while there is less evaporation there are also more clouds and more precipitation in some parts of the world. For example, only one fossil fuel power plant of 600 MW can send to the atmosphere about 50,400,000 liters of water per day. A nuclear power plant releases 80% more water than a fossil fuel power plant. But, these human influences are direct, not indirect ones due to gases, as has been said to us up to now. Also learn in Sartori papers that the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere. Only as latent heat, this plant emits 1,884,083 times (!) the solar radiation of 700 W/m2. 

5) Read the papers “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors” and “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works” published in a truly peer-reviewed journal to learn why there is less evaporation and how the atmosphere really works and thus please do not continue using erroneous concepts. Also, please, be honest in referencing the articles for the benefit of the humankind.

THE SUN IS NOT THE ONLY HEAT SOURCE FOR THE ATMOSPHERE

In the scientific developments that I have done I have always had a vast material to demonstrate that the pseudoscience of the “global warming caused by the CO2” does not know deeply neither basically the true physical concepts nor the working principles of the atmosphere. Even so, such wrong empirical “science” commands the world due to its strong political and mediatic influence, which, however, is not based on science, because this one is not sustained by them. For example, the solar/thermal radiation and its CO2 are not the only components or the responsible ones for the determination of the air temperature. This is demonstrated physically and mathematically in my articles “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences” (2012) and “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works” (2015).

Also demonstrated in these papers is the fact that such pseudoscience and the rest of the world did not imagine that the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere. In reality, there are many others that also affect the air temperature and other atmospheric behaviors. The demonstrations and the numerical example below will make this clear.

The Sun is obviously the only natural and external heat source for the planet and atmosphere, however, on the Earth’s surface there are other heat sources which are constituted by the generation of heat by certain human activities, such as fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, industries, vehicles, burnings, etc, which ones add heat and mass to the atmosphere and consequently affect its heat and mass balances and thus the air temperature and other atmospheric behaviors.

The equation (2) from Sartori (2015) represents and explains this heat balance

 S + H = qe + qr + qc + qL

where, S = solar radiation received by the Earth’s surface, W/m²; H = heat generated at or added to the surface by human activities, W/m²; qe = latent heat loss by evaporation, W/m²; qr = sensible heat loss by radiation, W/m²; qc = sensible heat loss by convection, W/m²; qk = sensible heat loss by conduction through the soil, W/m²; qL = latent heat loss from the surface due to the steam, W/m².

This energy added to the Earth’s surface comes from the energy existent in the subsoil coal, oil, gas, uranium, etc, which is converted into heat by human activities. This heat is released to the atmosphere by radiation, convection and latent heat. The consequence is a warming of portions of the atmosphere. And extra heat generates clouds, rain, strong winds. And it is known from the study of the physics that latent heat generates storms. Then, if it generates storms it also generates tornadoes and hurricanes, as I have always demonstrated physically and mathematically. So, certain human actions can alter the heat and mass balances of the atmosphere and as a result alter its humidity, temperature and natural behaviors, directly, that is, not as has been said to us up to now due to the “greenhouse effect caused by the CO2”.

To illustrate, let’s see the following numerical example that considers the latent heat qL and corresponding mass only. The water consumption by a coal-fired power plant of 600 MW is about 3.5 l/MWh or 35,000 l/min, or even more, that is, this is the approximate amount of water that such plant consumes (water lost to the air, not included the water that is “recycled” by these plants) from rivers and lakes and throws into the atmosphere.

The corresponding latent heat released can be easily calculated. The mass of water that only one of these plants throws into the air is obtained as

m = 3.5 l/kWh x 600.000 kW = 2,100,000 l/h = 50,400,000 l/d

A nuclear plant releases 80% more water than a corresponding fossil fuel power plant.

Now, calculating the latent heat for this case we obtain qL = mL = 1,318,858,333 W, that is, only one of such power plant can emit to the atmosphere 2.2 times its own nominal power solely in latent heat. Moreover, if we concentrate such emitted energy in one square meter this energy will be equal to 1,318,858,333 W/m², or 1,884,083 times (!) the solar radiation of 700 W/m², which is a high solar energy value, or can heat 1,884,083 m² with the equivalent energy of 700 W on each square meter.

For those who thought that human beings do not have the capacity to influence the climate, here are good measures and clarifying calculations, for the first time in the world.

If so much heat multiplied by so many heat sources is released into the air on every instant around the world, obviously that the local and regional air is heated and thermometers in the vicinities register such increases and then the average temperature and other atmospheric behaviors are affected.

Such impacts are due to certain direct human actions and not indirect ones due to some gases. This is clear and very different than the pseudoscience thinking for which almost only one gas (with a concentration of 0.039% (!) in the atmosphere) and the corresponding radiation must be considered alone for deciding about the planet’s air temperature and everything else about climatic issues. Furthermore, the CO2 has an influence of less than one percent on the air temperature, as I demonstrated in the above mentioned scientific papers.

Therefore, all of the factors, variables and atmospheric components described in the scientific papers mentioned above must be taken into account for computing the air temperature and climate changes, including the water vapor and the cloud cover strong influence, which elements also vary according to the new totals.

Moreover, these are scientific reasons on why we verify that the graph “hockey stick” (pillar of the pseudoscience) is erroneous and false and does not represent the atmospheric physical reality and the true air temperature.

So, these are other demonstrations of mine through which we can clearly see that the air temperature, its variations and other atmospheric behaviors cannot be attributed exclusively to the carbon dioxide, to its radiation, to its greenhouse effect and to the Sun.