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, 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, 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 normally expect 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 scientific journals. Such attitudes only strengthen my work and my convictions on my theoretical developments. 

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- review 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

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.

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 

http://sartori-aquecimentoglobal.blogspot.com

quarta-feira, 2 de setembro de 2015

THE “HOCKEY STICK” AND THE "EMPIRE" ARE OVERTHROWN

I am going to start commenting on the dogmas or pillars of the pseudo-science on “global” warming or “climate changes caused by the CO2” that were overthrown by the articles “Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works” (2015) and “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences” (2012).  

For such group of empiricist researchers, the air temperature and all the rest of climatic changes have increased homogeneously and globally due to the increased emissions of CO2 and of other gases. And, according to them, only the solar/thermal radiation takes place and modifies the air temperature and the climate.  

First of all, I will do a parenthesis to say that simple temperature changes of the order of 2 ºC and for 2100, as they state, do not have power to cause any catastrophe, since such magnitude corresponds to simple variations of daily temperatures in micro-climates and such variations are natural and cause nothing besides simple and common temperature changes with their simple and common warming/cooling processes. And such guys are already saying that many and tremendous catastrophes have already happened due to a supposed increase of mere 0.8 ºC in relation to the temperatures of the 20th Century. First, they cannot guarantee that such increase is real and that it is by indirect action by human beings (greenhouse effect caused by the CO2) due to various reasons including well-known frauds and manipulations (e.g., Climategate, “hockey stick”, NASAGATE).

Moreover, they give no one scientific explanation with the use of physical principles on the reasons why only 0.8 ºC is able to cause so many and strong things, they only say and prove nothing. This is not science! Even so, their journals continue publishing everything that the defenders of the “global” warming “caused by the CO2” want, once the authors simply make the link between anything and the CO2. Furthermore, the IPCC AR4 of 2007 states that the temperature for 2100 will increase up to 6.4 ºC, but now that people say that such increase will be of 2 ºC. Then, we ask: has the planet cooled or are their forecasts wrong? Obviously, their “models”, “science”, statements and thoughts are wrong!              

I will start by the radiation. Their greenhouse effect is represented by a layer of CO2 surrounding the Earth and where only the radiation influences the air temperature and other climate changes. Their greenhouse effect is also represented by a common greenhouse without water. 

They also show not to know that the atmosphere works according to heat and mass balances. Thus, for them the solar radiation S is the only energy source for the Earth’s surface and the thermal radiation qr emitted back is the only energy released by this surface and the air temperature would be a consequence of such heat balance. So, 

S = qr                                                       (1)

However, this way to consider what influences the air temperature is totally wrong because not only the solar/thermal radiation takes place, but also other heat transfer modes and other components and parameters. The heat losses (or emissions) from the Earth’s surface do not happen solely by radiation, but also by evaporation qe (which is the greatest parcel!), qc by convection and qk by conduction to the ground. Thus,

S = qe + qr + qc + qk                               (2)

As we can see, other heat transfer modes besides the radiation affect the processes of heating/cooling of the atmosphere and consequently the air temperature, that is, eq. (1) is totally wrong and as the result the air temperature also becomes erroneous. If a student, after having studied the corresponding subject, referred to eq. (1) as the correct one for the case (also influenced by the empirical science), he/she would receive a zero.      

To illustrate, let’s see a numerical example. So, if we take any value for the solar radiation, let’s say S = 700 W/m2, the summation of the energy lost by the surface to the air and to the soil must be equal to 700 W/m2 (in steady state, to simplify). Thus, if we have, for example,  

                                           700 = 400 + 175 + 124 + 1

then
      
                                                              700 = 700

The proportions above are approximate and were adopted according to known theoretical-experimental data and where we can see that the radiation is not the greater part and is much smaller than the released energy by evaporation. And if only the radiation was considered the energy balance would not match and the resulting air temperature would become erroneous, as we can see through eq. (1). For the pseudo-science the above count gives 700 = 175. Furthermore, that group eliminates the water vapor from the atmosphere as a contributor for the influence on the air temperature, thus, how could eq. (1) and the air temperature be correct for them?     

Therefore, values of the air temperature cannot be determined only by changing the levels of the CO2 and of the corresponding radiation, as they state and make the “hockey stick”. Since the air temperature depends on a series of factors and parameters, there aren’t scientific reasons that connect the temperature only with the CO2, also because this gas does not have any special power to command the temperature and the climate, as demonstrated in Sartori (2015). There is no one reason that justifies that the variations of temperature must follow up the variations of CO2. Therefore, the “hockey stick” is empiricism, a scientific ignorance and a fraud made by such pseudoscience. The atmosphere does not work only with radiation and CO2! So easy!

Moreover, to consider only the radiation in this process violates the Law of conservation of energy (nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed), which concept was discovered by Lomonosov 14 years before Lavoisier. This law represents the fundamental behavior of the nature, and then everything that comes from such violation becomes erroneous and an irrationality. It is with the true science that we unmask scientifically and ethically that kind of group that protects itself. So, being the “hockey stick” overthrown, their “empire” is also dethroned!

And by these demonstrations we can clearly see how erroneous and absurd are their pseudoscience and “models”, and even so such group wants to determine the destinies of the world. The science and the humanity cannot be leaded irresponsibly.

sexta-feira, 24 de abril de 2015

A SUMMARY OF THE SARTORI THEORY: HOW THE ATMOSPHERE AND CLIMATE CHANGES REALLY WORK

The fossil fuel power plants are always installed at the sides of rivers and lakes because they need too much water for consumption and use. The consumption of water by a coal fired power plant of 600 MW is about 3.5 l/kWh. Thus,

3.5 l/kWh x 600000 kWh = 2,100,000 l/h = 50,400,000 l/d = 1,512,000,000 l/m!

I said “consumption”, which super heated steam is thrown to the atmosphere and not “use of water”, which one returns very heated to the reservoir. 

If one drop of water is thrown to the air, one drop of water will come back, but the fossil fuel power plants, industries, vehicles, etc, do not release only millions of tons of water to the atmosphere, but also tons of particulate matter and much heat per hour. We can take these numbers to illustrate what they can generate in the atmosphere, as already demonstrated in Sartori (2012; 2015).      
Fig. 1
 
Figure 1 shows how the nature or the atmosphere worked before the actions of certain human activities. There was natural evaporation with its natural velocity and natural formation of clouds and precipitation, according to the natural evaporation velocity and other natural factors. The natural or conventional water cycle worked. And the ventilation was good.

Fig. 2

Then appeared industries, fossil fuel power plants, nukes, vehicles, etc, which ones started throwing millions of tons of water vapor to the air around the globe at every instant. Then the formation of clouds started not depending on the natural evaporation, because these agents started to release more water vapor, particulate matter and heat to the air and more rapidly than the natural cycles can do. Then, the cloud cover started to increase and then more raining and floods started to happen, with irregular spatial and temporal distributions. Then the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by Sartori, started to work (Fig. 2). This is not only theory, but also well demonstrated and justified with real data and mathematical calculations in Sartori (2012; 2015). And such as the wind disappears from a surface when we cover it, so the wind reduces due to the greater closing by clouds and this happened in some places of the world. For example, the population of China refers to the “disappearing winds” – see Sartori (2012). And greater closing corresponds to an airless environment, increased temperature (this one depends on the transparency of clouds) and warming for the people. And the evaporation decreases.         


Fig. 3

However, since the fossil fuel power plants, industries, vehicles, burnings, etc, also throw  millions of tons of solid particles in the air, a time arrives when there is a limit of saturation for the water vapor, particulates and heat to form clouds and rain and then the solid particulates in excess accumulate in the atmosphere and create a solid “barrier” in the air, with consequent less clouds and less rain and more droughts in uncertain periods and places (Fig. 3).  

Since the power plants, nukes and industries also throw a lot of heat in the air besides water and particulates, extra heat generates clouds, rain and strong winds, which ones can generate storms, tornadoes and hurricanes.

And the CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

By this way I did a summary of the Sartori theory that describes correctly the working principles of the atmosphere and of climate changes caused by certain human activities..

More info: http://sartori-aquecimentoglobal.blogspot.com  (in Portuguese)

References:

1) Sartori, E. (2015). Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works. Open J. of Applied Sciences, V. 5, No.4. 


2) Sartori, E. (2012). The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences, Open J. of Applied Sciences, V. 2, No. 4.


terça-feira, 27 de maio de 2014

CHANGES IN THE WATER CYCLE

Here is shown how erroneous and absurd is the “science” on “global warming or climate changes caused by the CO2”. The text below comes from the true science and not from the erroneous, incomplete and empirical-based “science” and “models” that are not able to show and prove the scientific truth.   

Changes in the water cycle have been understood as consequences of a warmer atmosphere, with statements such as “water vapor increases as the Earth’s atmosphere warms”. However, the water vapor does not increase as the Earth’s atmosphere warms! Increase of temperature does not increase the mass of water in the atmosphere! Heat does not create mass! Mass does not create mass! A warmer air only has the capacity, the potential, for absorbing more water vapor, but this potential is used only if there is addition of mass of water. Even in a warm and wet condition, the atmosphere remains with the previous amount of water vapor if there isn’t direct addition of water vapor. This corresponds to the simplest psychrometric process called “sensible heating”, where the dry bulb temperature increases but since no moist is added the humidity does not increase. If the air temperature alone increased the water vapor, the Sahara would be the most humid place on the planet!  

Such erroneous understanding is accompanied by the erroneous understanding that this potential of absorption corresponds to the evaporation capacity. Erroneous concepts such as “warmer air temperatures evaporate more water” have led to incorrect works, models, conclusions and decisions for the humanity. Among many other things (described in Sartori 1996; 2012), the evaporation depends on the gradient Pw – Pa and the relevant fact is that pressures depend on temperatures and thus the evaporation depends on tw – ta, which means that if ta increases for a same tw, the evaporation decreases. And the water has a thermal inertia 4.2 times greater than the air, and then the air temperature fluctuates more than the water temperature. Therefore, for a considered increase in air temperature the evaporation decreases. This is also shown in Sartori (1996) where we can see that for a same water temperature even with a relatively higher wind velocity, a higher air temperature produces an evaporation lower than that for a lower air temperature. High air temperatures have a strong power in reducing the evaporation, and this factor together with the greenhouse effect created by covering an open evaporator with glass or by covering the atmosphere with clouds also explains why the evaporation has decreased in the last times, not increased. Moreover, in the last 50 years the evaporation has decreased while the precipitation has increased which apparent inconsistency together with such incorrect concepts led to the erroneous “evaporation paradox” and its non-sense “solutions” by Brutsaert-Parlange (1998) and by Roderick-Farquhar (2002), for example. Such erroneous and absurd works led to the present author’s discovery of the New Hydrological Cycle (Sartori 2012). 

Therefore, changes in the water cycle are NOT due to the supposed greenhouse effect or warming by the CO2, but according to direct additions of water vapor, aerosols and heat by certain human activities, as demonstrated in Sartori (2012). For example, if one drop of water is thrown upward, one drop of water will come back. And certain human activities, such as industries, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have thrown much more than one drop of water upward (in reality, thousands of tons of water every second worldwide) faster than the natural cycles can do and this explains the lots of floods around almost all the globe.

Sartori E. (1996). Solar Still versus Solar Evaporator: A Comparative Study between their Thermal Behaviors. Solar Energy, V. 56, No. 2.

Sartori E. (2012). The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors and Human-Induced Climatic Consequences. Open J. of Applied Sciences, V. 2, No. 4.