Did you think that I would give the following explanation to support my story?

"ECO GROUP WARNS OF FRESHWATER CRISIS" I saw this headline in some news report quite a while ago.
So I figured that I would add my two bits to it.
First of all, everyone knows that water evaporates at a lower temperature when it is in lower air pressure.
Simple law of physics that no one seems to be noticing, or if they are then they are ignoring it when confronted with disappearing lakes; and drying rivers.
From web site:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update47.htm
<quote>“More than 2 billion people live in countries with chronic water stress. Many of the world’s people, especially in developing countries, depend on fish for protein. Lakes are not only reservoirs of fresh water and a source of food, but also important habitats for aquatic organisms and waterfowl. Lakes reduce flood damage, moderate climate, and recharge groundwater supplies. They also offer transportation and recreational opportunities and income from tourism. With all the benefits that we derive from healthy lakes, we cannot afford to let them disappear.”<quote>
From: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2038439,00.html
<quote>"Some of the world's largest and best-known rivers are at risk of drying up as a result of climate change, pollution and bad planning, a report warned today.
The study by the environment group, WWF, focuses on the ten rivers most danger of drying up or dying, and warns that, without action, the world faces "a freshwater emergency".
Five of the 10 rivers listed are in Asia, including the Yangtze, the Ganges and the Salween, highlighting the profound problems facing the region.
Europe's Danube, the African Nile and South America's Rio Grande are among other rivers under serious threat."<quote>
Snip
<quote>"The world is facing a massive freshwater crisis, which has the potential to be every bit as devastating as climate change," said Dr David Tickner, head of WWF UK's Freshwater programme.”<quote>
When water in the lakes and rivers is warmed, it turns into vapour, first the warm vapour goes up just like any other gas would when hotter than the surroundings, and if this water vapour cools enough then it comes down as rain or snow.
IF on the other hand it does not cool down, but instead gets hotter, then some of it may never come back to Earth.
The question then might be: Why would water vapour get hotter when it is in the air, it has never done that before.
The sun is the major energy source that heats the Earth and its bodies of water.
It is not a natural phenomenon for water vapour to get hotter when it gets into the air, but there is something in today’s environment that has not existed on Earth in the past, or at least during the time that humans have been here.
That new “something” in the air is a large quantity of radioactive atoms.
The radioactive atoms have gotten into the atmosphere from various nuclear power plant mishaps and the nuclear weapons tests.
Some information on nuclear power mishaps can be obtained from the following site:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
Nuclear power plants use radioactive material to heat water into steam, the steam then turns turbines that create electricity.
Radioactive atoms, such as uranium, contain energy that “heats” the surrounding molecules, in other words, atoms that make up the molecules of water, obtain more kinetic energy by receiving that energy from the radioactivity.
Radioactivity is a nuclear process, the nuclear process does not stop no matter what type of an environment that radioactive atom is placed in.
If radioactive atoms are allowed to “escape” into the atmosphere, then those atoms will expend their energy into the surrounding air molecules.
If the radioactive atom content is high enough in the atmosphere, then the atmospheric water vapour and other molecules can increase in temperature. (kinetic energy)
If such “activity” happens in the very high reaches of the atmosphere, then the extra “heat” can cause the molecules or atoms to escape the Earth’s gravitational field.
There is plenty of evidence that atmospheric molecules DO escape into space, but what the total quantity is per year is not so clear.
Some quotes from a NASA site:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm
Date: December 9, 1997
<quote>"To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space as DE-1 arced to about 4.6 Earth radii above the pole (the orbit was 464 x 23,370 km [288 x 14,490 mi]).
"The more we measured it," he said, "the more we realized that this was a big source of material." RIMS measured ions of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and nitrogen rising at different speeds and on different trajectories.
Apparently, the particles that slammed into the ionosphere to paint the aurora borealis also energized enough atoms to head spaceward. (The same is true of the south pole where DE-1 made similar observations.) The acceleration mechanism is not fully understood, though. Giles said that very low frequency (VLF) radio waves, emitted in the magnetosphere, may contribute energy."<quote>
Snip
<quote>"And lo and behold, there's all this low-energy plasma flowing out of the atmosphere and into the magnetosphere," Chappell said. Some of the material does fall back to Earth, mostly the heavier ions with low energies, but enough apparently is accelerated to reach into the tail of the magnetosphere.
TIDE expanded on RIMS's measurements and showed that the ion flow starts with very low energies, down to a few tenths of an electron-volt, and that its altitude is twice as high as DE-1's orbit.
"The really incredible thing," Chappell said, "is that if you do a very careful model of the magnetic field and electric field, and then put in 10 eV particles, they go into the plasma sheet, and are energized at least a thousandfold.".<quote>
Snip
<quote>"We're not starting with a solar wind particle at 1 keV," Chappell sad, "but with atmospheric particles at a few eV. They make up everything you see up there.".<quote>
_____________________________________________________
Date: Jan. 7, 1999
<quote>"However, the auroral fountain is spewing all the time, even without the sun helping things out.
"The main question is, How do these very low-energy particles defy gravity and get to those altitudes?" said Coffey.."<quote>
Snip.
<quote>"In the early 1980s, scientists at NASA/Marshall, using an instrument aboard the Dynamics Explorer-1 (DE-1) satellite, discovered that the upper ionosphere is heated by electrical currents to form a "polar plasma fountain" of oxygen and hydrogen ions.
Follow-on studies by the Thermal Ion Dynamics Experiment (TIDE) aboard the Polar spacecraft, launched in 1995, have shown that the fountain rises higher than the DE-1 could measure. Indeed, the evidence is building that Earth's magnetotail is filled with ions not from the solar wind but accelerated upward from Earth's own atmosphere."<quote>
Date: Dec. 8, 1998
<quote>"Some plasma and all fast atoms are permanently lost from the ionosphere to the downstream solar wind while much of the plasma outflow is recirculated through the magnetotail neutral sheet and accelerated to form energetic plasmas.<quote>
Quote taken from:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/ast08dec98_1.htm
The above information raises a series of questions:
It is obvious from the above information that many rivers are drying, there also are many lakes that have mostly disappeared.
There are many references to such events on the internet.
Ref #1:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-45033.html
<quote>“In this latest study, comparing data from 1973 with findings from 1997-98, the total number of large lakes decreased by around 11 percent. While many did not disappear completely they shrank significantly. The overall loss of lake surface area was a loss of approximately 6 percent. In addition, 125 lakes vanished completely and are now re-vegetated.”<quote>
And here ref #2:
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/59350/an/0/page/56
And here ref #3:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002100/a002105/
<quote>“In the last thirty years, more than sixty percent of the lake has disappeared. As you'll see in the visualization, the change over time is dramatic.”<quote>

If lakes, rivers and polar ice caps are disappearing then there obviously must be a cause for these effects.
The big question then is WHY are these things happening?
There are all types of speculation going around about it, for instance, that it is caused by the so called greenhouse gasses, such as CO2.
The CO2 itself does not heat the atmosphere but it is said that it somehow prevents the heat from escaping the Earth, I must admit that I do not know exactly how this, or other gasses can retain more heat from the sun than normally comes from the sun.
In my understanding of physics, one can not get more energy out of a system than one puts into it.
If the sun heats up the atmosphere of mostly nitrogen to a certain degree during a day, then WHY should the sun heat an atmosphere of CO2 to a greater degree during the same time period?
If I have a container of nitrogen and a similar container of CO2 at the same pressure and temperature and I leave them in the sunshine for the same period of time, will the CO2 container become hotter than the nitrogen container?
I think not.
If the CO2 is not heating the atmosphere, then what is?
How about radioactivity, as explained above.
Suppose that radioactive “leaks” are heating the atmosphere on top of the energy coming from the sun, as long as there is radioactive elements in the air they will continue to “expel” their energy into the atmosphere.
Such “extra” energy may be the major cause of the disappearing water that has been recorded all over the world.
This “extra” energy may also be the reason that the ozone layer is disappearing.
If the “extra” energy is heating the ozone layer area, the gasses there will decrease in density and in the process the ozone layer becomes thinner.
I’d like to get answers to some questions such as:
Has the radioactivity in the atmosphere increased in the past 10 years?
Has this atmospheric loss increased in the last 10 years?
Will this process doom the life on Earth in a million years or only a thousand years or less than 100 years?
Does anyone have any accurate figures that would answer the questions