Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works

Abstract

Top concepts adopted by the current science on climate changes or atmospheric warming are not in agreement with the first principles of the physics. This paper presents a new understanding on the atmospheric behaviors. For example, the radiation is not the only factor that influences the air temperature, as the law of conservation of energy defines and as shown physically and mathematically in this article. The Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere because there is generation of heat at the Earth's surface by human activities. It is also shown that the water vapor is not a null effect and that the water vapor cannot be removed from the atmosphere for air temperature, greenhouse effect and climate changes considerations, in contrast to the current literature beliefs. The "feedback" concept is unfounded and invalid. The literature also says that "water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms", but this is also incorrect. The above equivocated understanding is accompanied by another one which believes that more water evaporates if the air temperature increases, but it is not in this way. These demonstrations and other authors' surveys showing that in the last decades the planet became wetter eliminate the literature concept that the water vapor does not have influence on the atmospheric warming/cooling. The conventional water cycle is related to the mass of water (mass of evaporation  mass of precipitation) and then the physical and mathematical principles of the new hydrological cycle that includes the direct human influence are shown. The same is done for the carbon cycle. It is solved the problem on why the wind speed on Venus is very high above the cloud deck while it is stagnant below it, being this the same physical principle valid for the Earth's cloud cover. In the atmosphere, all the corresponding principles are the same, only their amounts change. It is demonstrated that the CO2 is not decisive for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Earth. Ice cores are not valid for "determining" "past" temperatures of the planet, because the mass of their air bubbles may be old, but the corresponding temperatures are not.

Carbon Dioxide is Not the Guilty

“…Moreover, the "science" on global warming considers the atmosphere as having only the role of warming and in its global panorama. As demonstrated in Sartori (2012Sartori ( , 2015Sartori ( , 2019aSartori ( , 2019b) the H2O in the air also has human causes. In these publications, it is shown, among other things, that the water vapor in the air due to some human activities increases clouds, humidity, rain, floods etc., and modifies the natural cycles because they do this in higher amount, more rapid and more irregularly than the natural cycles can do.…”

“…On the contrary, the atmosphere is gaseous whose physical processes have multiple causes, variations and consequences. Such human activities humidify the planet, produce more clouds (or fewer clouds when the saturation limits of clouds for aerosols are reached, see Sartori 2012Sartori , 2015Sartori , 2019b, more precipitation (or less precipitation) and more floods in irregular amounts, times and places.…”

Gestalt-terapia e sustentabilidade: uma abordagem pluricêntrica do meio ambiente

“…Por fim, o autor propõe a hipótese de resfriamento da Terra para os próximos anos, mas faz uma ressalva sobre a relevância da conservação ambiental, tendo em vista o crescimento populacional e a salvaguarda de condições dignas de sobrevivência às futuras gerações. Um estudo mais recente (Sartori, 2015) novamente critica os modelos de previsões climáticas do IPCC e afirma, por meio de demonstrações físicas e matemáticas, que o dióxido de carbono não tem importância significativa para mudanças de temperatura na Terra. Sartori, no entanto, reconhece que a atividade humana possa causar mudanças climáticas em razão do lançamento de toneladas de água para a atmosfera (pela atividade industrial, por exemplo) que retornam à superfície irregularmente, o que se contrapõe à ideia de que o dióxido de carbono, que corresponde a regido por referências explicativas comuns entre os opositores, que se apropriam do método científico para criar suas afirmações ou hipóteses.…”

“…Mais ainda, há referências que, embora tenham nascido de saberes academicamente normatizados, foram relegadas ao ostracismo por manobras que não se justificam "cientificamente", como ocorreu com Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, economista defensor da tese do decrescimento (Georgescu-Roegen, 1979;Veiga, 2010). Abre-se um extenso campo reflexivo 0,039% da concentração na atmosfera (Sartori, 2015), possa alterar a dinâmica climática terrestre. Jankó et al (2014), pesquisadores da Hungria, apontam para uma possibilidade ainda mais séria: o uso institucional do saber científico, de maneira que o modo de delineamento e interpretação das fontes utilizadas para a construção do quarto relatório (bem como suas propostas de providências) não refletiriam conclusões realmente sérias, já que, segundo os autores, as fontes consideradas teriam sido somente aquelas que estivessem em conformidade com o discurso já previamente afirmado pela instituição, tornando o documento partidário.…”