Gneissic, that is probably what they meant. But, as I am sure that pX would agree, accuracy is an important part of science. The trouble with that article is that, if they can post something that stupid, then it isn't possible to rely upon anything else it says. We have to assume at every juncture that what they are saying is what we think they are saying or make adjustments for what we think they meant to say. So the whole article is untrustworthy.
It's a pretty basic mistake, after all. If they meant what they say, then most of the oceans would evaporate, at a guess. No point in working it out as it is clearly wrong. Not proof read by anyone reliable.
