O comentário abaixo foi colocado por mim num site da turma deles, isto é, "peitando" eles direta e frontalmente e não é a primeira vez que faço isso. E toda vez que coloco um comentário lá eles o removem, mostrando claramente que não são democráticos dando vez a todos e não é ciência verdadeira o que fazem, pois esta incentiva o questionamento e o ceticismo para sempre avançar. Eles temem qualquer demonstração científica que não vá de encontro ao que afirmam bem como não têm argumentos científicos para sustentar seus "achismos". Mas, sempre volto a colocar os comentários de novo.  

Embora esse site e sua revista pertençam ao IOP (Institute of Physics), essa turma age da mesma forma que os outros especialistas tais como meteorologistas, climatologistas, hidrologistas, paleontólogos, geólogos, geógrafos, etc, isto é, puramente empiricamente. Isso mostra que é só esse caminho que o mundo conhece, até eu aparecer.  

No respectivo trabalho publicado naquela revista e naquele site, eles dizem que a evapotranspiração (evaporação de plantas e solos, que é muito pequena) está fazendo o ciclo hidrológico natural acelerar, devido ao CO2. Mas, mostro que a adição de água diretamente por certas atividades humanas (como termoelétricas), tem muito mais poder para afetar o ciclo natural bem como o clima. Também digo, entre outras coisas, que o caminho que essa turma segue irá conduzir o mundo para o buraco, não para as corretas soluções para a humanidade.   

"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 to 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".