segunda-feira, 5 de junho de 2017


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.  

The main problems are that Poos and Varju (2016; 2017) 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) 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) 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) 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's corresponding statements are characterized as plagiarism.     

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:   


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”. 

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. 

This is not the first time that my papers suffer with such behaviors, please see Retraction.


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.

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.

sábado, 29 de abril de 2017


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 20th 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)

sábado, 16 de julho de 2016

"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.

segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2016


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.

domingo, 6 de dezembro de 2015

I added the comment below on the site of the IOP-Institute of Physics, regarding a paper published by its journal ERL on evapotranspiration:

"Evapotranspiration alone does not guarantee that the hydrological cycle is getting faster. It is well known (e.g., Brutsaert-Parlange 1998) that the evaporation has decreased in the last 50 years in many parts of the world while the clouds and the precipitation have increased in the same period. And the evaporation from free water surfaces is much higher than the evapotranspiration from plants and soils.

Because the world was aware only on the knowledge of the conventional or natural water cycle, this decreased evaporation-increased clouds and precipitation led to the incomprehension called “evaporation paradox”, which is now correctly solved in the article “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences” through the true physical principles, in contrast to the nonsense empirical “solutions” by Brutsaert-Parlange 1998 and by Roderick-Farquhar 2002, for example.

Furthermore, the natural hydrological cycle is not only getting faster (due to other reasons), but it is changed, and changed according to the New Hydrological Cycle discovered by Sartori. The empirical science on global warming is able to think only about the CO2 and thus does not see the correct human influence and the relevant atmospheric behaviors with their consequences that affect the air directly.

The conventional water cycle says that Precipitation = Evaporation. However, if I throw one drop of water into the air this equation must be modified to 

Precipitation = Evaporation + One drop.

This is what the New Hydrological Cycle establishes. Of course, one drop doesn’t matter but only one fossil fuel power plant of 600 MW can throw to the air more than 2,400,000 kg/h = 57,600,000 kg/day of water. If we concentrate such emissions in one square meter, this figure will become equal to 21,024,000,000 kg/yr m2. Remember, this is only for one power plant of 600 MW! Meanwhile, one millimeter in a square meter corresponds to one liter or to one kilogram. Thus, 1.18 mm/year corresponds to 1.18 kg/yr m2. It seems that the water emissions by only one power plant are much higher than 1.18 kg/yr m2 and cause much more clouds and precipitation than the evapotranspiration…

Moreover, considering the corresponding latent heat for this power plant we obtain 1,507,266,667 W/m2. This is equal to 2,153,238 times (!!) the very good solar radiation of 700 W/m2, which also means that the sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere. These enormous mass and heat added constantly and directly to the atmosphere by certain human activities cause much more damage to the climate than the indirect and supposed high consequences by the CO2 and its radiation. By the way, the air temperature does not depend only on the radiation heat transfer and thus the “hockey stick” and everything that comes from such understanding and application is invalid, ingenuous and erroneous.

You can learn much more through the paper mentioned above as well as through the other one titled “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works”.

You want to hide the New Hydrological Cycle and other correct and relevant discoveries but you cannot run from them! OK, continue thinking empirically and dedicating all of your efforts on the irrelevant and erroneous CO2 and on its radiation and giving importance only to your mafia journals and then you will lead the world to the hole, not to the proper solutions for the humanity".

segunda-feira, 26 de outubro de 2015

Science must be objective, impersonal, not subjective (through polls, for example), in order to find the true scientific ways for the benefit of the humankind. Since we all live on a same planet, these correct ways are important and decisive for all. Therefore, I recommend you to read the papers "Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works" and “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors", which ones change the world and demonstrate the true physical principles of the atmospheric behaviors that were also confirmed by experimental data and calculations. Everything there is consistent, coherent and transparent. A true science can be written even onto a napkin, and these articles were submitted to strong peer-review as well as the author is firmly aware on the correctness of the physical principles that he writes about.    

There you will see, among many other things:  

- the planet works according to two systems of the solar energy area: a solar still and a solar evaporator, and not according to a CO2 layer circling the planet or to a common greenhouse without water;

- the radiation is not the only heat transfer mode for determining the air temperature and is much smaller than the evaporation one, and then among many other conclusions this is why the "hockey stick" is a fraud;

- the current science on global warming or climate changes caused by the CO2 says that when the atmosphere warms the evaporation increases, but it is demonstrated physically and mathematically that this is wrong. For example, if temperature or warming created water, the Sahara would be the most humid place on the planet;  

- the true explanation and solution for the “evaporation paradox”. The corresponding empirical “solutions” found for such incomprehension violate the fundamental laws of the nature or of the physics, such as the law of conservation of energy and mass;  

- cloud covers reduce the wind and the evaporation and can increase the warming below them. The CO2 does not have this physical property;  

- through true graphs and calculations, the theoretical influence of the CO2 on the air temperature is shown to be less than one percent, thus, an insignificant influence. Ingenuous arguments such as the rudimentary and incipient ones of the 19th Century used by NASA, for example, to justify the power of the CO2, merely inform that this gas has a greenhouse effect, but does not define about how much is its power. Furthermore, the CO2 has no one physical property to cause any climate changes;  

- the CO2 is not decisive for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Earth; 

- the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere;

- the geoengineering is an absolute insanity and demonstrates the deep lack of knowledge on the true atmospheric behaviors; 

- ice cores are invalid for "determining" "past" temperatures or climates of the planet; 

- how an igloo works;

- that's incredible, humans can influence the climate, but not as has been said to us up to now; 

- the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by Sartori;

- which is the most accurate equation for the evaporation rate;

- much, much more. 

And further info at