You literally have no business in a scientific discussion

[Claudius Denk]

Perhaps if you would superpose a height (i.e. pressure) vs temperature
profile of atmosphere on a water phase diagram with the correct scales,
then you can make anybody see right away that the atmospheric profile
does not cross any gaseous water area on the phase diagram.

As pointed out before, a phase diagram *is* a pressure vs temperature profile, and the phase diagram for water clearly shows that at very low pressures water exists as a gas at virtually any temperature that you might choose.

Obviously. What is your point, moron?

For example...
Loading Image...
... it should be blatantly obvious that the entire area beneath the curved line show where the gaseous form of water can exist, all the way from at least as cold as 0.01°C all the way up to at least 373.99 °C, and with pressures from as low as at least 0.0060 up to at least 217.75 atmospheres.

Yeah, so? Do you have a fucking point?

Keep in mind that for air, water vapor only contributes a tiny bit of the volume, varying from just a trace to about 4%, so its contribution to the overall atmospheric pressure at any given time is miniscule when compared with the other components of air and therefore its partial pressure in the atmosphere can be very, very low...

Isn't all of this obvious?
Face it, moron, you don't have a relevant point--ever!!!

Jimbo, you are dead in the water with no hope of ever getting to port. You better just sink to the bottom and run like hell for shore... or just die....

Your existence is so shallow that these kind of obfuscatiion tactics are just normal for you.

The only person using "obfuscatiion tactics" here is you, crackpot.

You don't understand basic logic. There is no such thing as being obfuscatory when attempting to introduce novelty. Obfuscation is only useful to somebody, Paul Alsing in this instance, that is trying maintain the status quo of traditional beliefs. In other words, Alsing is trying to confuse our audience with irrelevancies in order to maintain the perceived validity of these traditional beliefs. All religions employ this same tactic in their literature, for example.

This is not to say that you might not be confused by something I say. But this would not have anything to do with intent to obfuscate on my part. It would have to do with either or both my inability to explain or your inability to comprehend. (And the fact that I had to explain this to you suggests it is the latter.)

You literally have no business in a scientific discussion.

CD / Genius

[James McGinn]

Perhaps if you would superpose a height (i.e. pressure) vs temperature
profile of atmosphere on a water phase diagram with the correct scales,
then you can make anybody see right away that the atmospheric profile
does not cross any gaseous water area on the phase diagram.

As pointed out before, a phase diagram *is* a pressure vs temperature profile, and the phase diagram for water clearly shows that at very low pressures water exists as a gas at virtually any temperature that you might choose.

Obviously. What is your point, moron?

For example...
https://d20khd7ddkh5ls.cloudfront.net/img_dff5d8f31ef7-1.jpeg
... it should be blatantly obvious that the entire area beneath the curved line show where the gaseous form of water can exist, all the way from at least as cold as 0.01°C all the way up to at least 373.99 °C, and with pressures from as low as at least 0.0060 up to at least 217.75 atmospheres.

Yeah, so? Do you have a fucking point?

Keep in mind that for air, water vapor only contributes a tiny bit of the volume, varying from just a trace to about 4%, so its contribution to the overall atmospheric pressure at any given time is miniscule when compared with the other components of air and therefore its partial pressure in the atmosphere can be very, very low...

Isn't all of this obvious?
Face it, moron, you don't have a relevant point--ever!!!

Jimbo, you are dead in the water with no hope of ever getting to port. You better just sink to the bottom and run like hell for shore... or just die....

Your existence is so shallow that these kind of obfuscatiion tactics are just normal for you.

The only person using "obfuscatiion tactics" here is you, crackpot.

You don't understand basic logic. There is no such thing as being obfuscatory when attempting to introduce novelty. Obfuscation is only useful to somebody, Paul Alsing in this instance, that is trying maintain the status quo of traditional beliefs. In other words, Alsing is trying to confuse our audience with irrelevancies in order to maintain the perceived validity of these traditional beliefs. All religions employ this same tactic in their literature, for example.
This is not to say that you might not be confused by something I say. But this would not have anything to do with intent to obfuscate on my part. It would have to do with either or both my inability to explain or your inability to comprehend. (And the fact that I had to explain this to you suggests it is the latter.)
You literally have no business in a scientific discussion.
CD / Genius