- Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Nobre A.D., Nefiodov A.V., Sheil D., Nobre P., Li B.-L. (2018)
**Comments on "Is condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics a new theory of the origin of the winds?" by Jaramillo et al. (2018).**arXiv:1809.01874 [physics.ao-ph] *Abstract*

Jaramillo et al. (2018) criticized our theory of condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics (CIAD). We value any such interest but, as we show below, Jaramillo et al. (2018)’s main statement, that CIAD modifies the equation of vertical motion such that it violates Newton’s third law, is unsupported. Contrary to their claims, CIAD does not make any "modification to the vertical momentum budget" (correct or incorrect) nor to any fundamental equations of hydrodynamics. (Despite claiming their assessment to be "rigorous", Jaramillo et al. (2018) don’t locate the alleged equation in our publications.) Rather, as we summarize below, CIAD constrains the power of atmospheric circulation in a manner that is consistent with observations. More specifically, we find that Jaramillo et al. (2018)’s analysis of the equation of vertical motion is invalid: it confuses the internal and external forces acting on a unit volume of air. The equations of motion for moist air are complicated (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2018), so confusions do occur. For example, the inconsistency between two conflicting equations of motions published within one year in same meteorological journal had persisted unresolved for over 15 years (Ooyama, 2001; Bannon, 2002). That controversy related to misinterpretations of Newton’s third law (see Makarieva et al., 2017 doi:10.1002/2017JD026773, their Fig. 1), which Jaramillo et al. (2018) perpetuate. Jaramillo et al. (2018) correctly note that two different expressions for the evaporative force, a key element of CIAD, occur in our publications. We use this opportunity to clarify these expressions. Finally, we clarify that there is no disagreement between CIAD and consideration of the atmosphere as a heat engine. Contrary to the claims of Jaramillo et al. (2018), these approaches address different problems and are complementary.

- Ìàêàðüåâà À.Ì., Ãîðøêîâ Â.Ã., Íîáðå À.Ä., Íåô¸äîâ À.Â., Øåéë Ä., Íîáðå Ï., Ëè Á.-Ë. (2018)
**Êîììåíòàðèè ê ðàáîòå "ßâëÿåòñÿ ëè êîíäåíñàöèîííàÿ äèíàìèêà íîâîé òåîðèåé ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ âåòðîâ?" ßðàìèëëî è äð. (2018).**arXiv:1809.01874 [physics.ao-ph] [íà àíãë. ÿç.] *Àííîòàöèÿ*

Jaramillo et al. (2018) criticized our theory of condensation-induced atmospheric dynamics (CIAD). We value any such interest but, as we show below, Jaramillo et al. (2018)’s main statement, that CIAD modifies the equation of vertical motion such that it violates Newton’s third law, is unsupported. Contrary to their claims, CIAD does not make any "modification to the vertical momentum budget" (correct or incorrect) nor to any fundamental equations of hydrodynamics. (Despite claiming their assessment to be "rigorous", Jaramillo et al. (2018) don’t locate the alleged equation in our publications.) Rather, as we summarize below, CIAD constrains the power of atmospheric circulation in a manner that is consistent with observations. More specifically, we find that Jaramillo et al. (2018)’s analysis of the equation of vertical motion is invalid: it confuses the internal and external forces acting on a unit volume of air. The equations of motion for moist air are complicated (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2018), so confusions do occur. For example, the inconsistency between two conflicting equations of motions published within one year in same meteorological journal had persisted unresolved for over 15 years (Ooyama, 2001; Bannon, 2002). That controversy related to misinterpretations of Newton’s third law (see Makarieva et al., 2017 doi:10.1002/2017JD026773, their Fig. 1), which Jaramillo et al. (2018) perpetuate. Jaramillo et al. (2018) correctly note that two different expressions for the evaporative force, a key element of CIAD, occur in our publications. We use this opportunity to clarify these expressions. Finally, we clarify that there is no disagreement between CIAD and consideration of the atmosphere as a heat engine. Contrary to the claims of Jaramillo et al. (2018), these approaches address different problems and are complementary.