"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.