Climate Activist Greta

[

You need to play ice hockey.

 

These memes, I can't. My sides are leaving orbit!

 

While it is correct that the freezing point of water increases slightly at lower pressures, atmospheric pressure in Denver, CO, is NOT STP. STP pressure is 1 atm, in Denver, P is 0.82 atm. Therefore, Giftedone is correct, measured at standard pressure and everything else being the same, the freezing point of water will always be 0 oC.

 

Because the climate doom folks all present their case with the same escaped from the cracker factory, vacant comportment. It is difficult to take someone serious about something that is far from substantiated while they appear mad as a hatter. It's kinda like watching Bernie Sanders and the enthralled zombies that support him.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, and in the same way, the flat earthers will say that NASA was developed to convince the sheeple that space exists.
100 million is just to conservative think tanks, and pretty much all 'scientists' that deny climate change are directly related to those organizations. They of course have fund raised and donated to many other causes. But, also, that's just 2 people. Never mind exxon and bp, and oil countries, etc etc, the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits threatened by the disclosure and acceptance of the environmental consequences of the fossil fuels industry. On the other side, we just have vague notion of what the "US" has spent on "it." What basically comes up when those accusations are leveled is what you were trying to say about the kochs. If you loosely include all the dollars spent on the space program and nuclear energy, and the entirety of the national science budget, sure you can kind of sort of draw an equivalence. But, not really. There still is nobody that can be pointed to who is making billions from science.
I agree on the conspiracy theories. There are almost no scientists, (especially scientists that are experts in the field) that see any reason to doubt man made climate change. What is reasonable is that the tiny tiny portion of scientists who do doubt it are influenced and/or in the pocket of the largest special interest on the planet. We saw it with tobacco.

 

How can we move on when you are in denial of the obvious ? The Freezing point of water is not variable under the same conditions.

Obviously if you add a bunch of salt to the water the freezing point will change .. and "settled science" can tell you exactly how much the freezing point of water will change .. or how much the freezing point will change on the basis of higher elevation.

We can not make such exact predictions in the case of AGW.

After making a mistake -rather than just admitting our mistake and moving on - you have doubled down on denial of your mistake by moving the goal posts. The AAAS agrees with me - not you.

 

Present the evidence demonstrating causation between man made CO2 emissions and global warming, and I will help you combat it in any way I can

 

Mmmm. You just made me hungry for homemade ice cream.

 

Lol, we have been through this before. Here's how it goes:

You: Prove to me the earth is round
Me: All evidence that exists shows that it's round, there is no credible organization that thinks otherwise.
y: show me the evidence and I'll believe you
m: Here's a bunch of pictures and evidence.
y: Fake news, cameras are unreliable, deep state... blah blah, show me evidence.
m: Takes you into space, peels your eyelids back smashes your face against the window points your eyeballs at the round earth
y: Don't see what your talking about. Show me the evidence and I'll believe you.
m: Ok, forget it
y: Ha! If you had any evidence, you would show it. You admit there is none and therefore I'm right.

 

I made no claims of anything.
Show the evidence that establishes causation.
Should be easy for you

 

Lol, it's very easy. But there is absolutely nothing that will qualify as evidence to you.

 

Try me.
You could start with........ ......something,.......anything,............... Beuller?

 

I did. Sent you three papers.

 

Can you kindly point out the parts that establish causation? Thanks in advance

 

Can I.... point out.... the part that shows causation... in the papers that show causation...

 

Look, if you can't its OK
I'll ask someone else

 

Hey hey. I'm a genius at making predictions lol.

lol, can you send me a picture of the color blue and point out the part where it's blue? Just send me a picture that is pure blue, then point out what part is blue... it's very easy... just tell me that part of blue that's blue... hey where are you going? If there is blue you should be able to point out the blue part... guess I was right all along there is no blue.

 

That’s kind of ridiculous. Much of the world’s population dies not live at sea level. You don’t know algebra do you ?
The temperature at which water freezes varies inversely with the pressure. Both are variables. Neither is constant. Dig out your algebra books from which all physics uses.
BTW, place an unopened bottle of bottled water in the freezer, and it may not freeze until we’ll below 0 C. ( super cooling) There are so many exceptions to the idea that water freezes at 32 degrees, it’s ridiculous. Ice melts at temps less then 32 degrees and refreezes during every hockey game.

Remember too, the original post was that water always freezes at 32 degrees. The idea that you’re now throwing in one atmosphere is BS..
I couldn’t get poster to even acknowledged what SATP referred to.

 

Notice the point indicated as STP? There is only ONE melting temperature associated with that point. It can't be any other way, since T, P, and G are ALL state variables, thus, there is only ONE defined state at which DeltaG for the transition is 0, defining the value for T when P = 1 atm.

BTW, I acknowledged that Tf increases with decreasing P, as indicated in the phase diagram. Thus, there is really nothing to dispute.

 

Why don’t you ask sources at NASA or MIT ? Afraid you might learn something ?
Somehow, you think you need to prove you’re an expert and play gotcha. Trolling ?

 

If I remember right, the gimmick you were trying, in a very tedious way, was that all that we can show is correlation instead of causation. The hope being that unless we can create a parallel universe, go back in time then compare the world with and without carbon emissions, you can always continue to deny any evidence. A common anti-science tactic is to arbitrarily define the parameters of what counts as evidence, or science or whatever suits your cause.

The problem with this is that the world's scientists are much smarter than you and are well aware of the differences between correlation and causation. For example:
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

 

Gee. That’s the graph of a function. Each point on the graph is represented by two coordinates, each of which is a variable. ( X,y) corresponds to (T,p) .
Notice that the graph is continuous. That tells you everything you need to know.

 

Well said.

 

Dude, I can't agree with you just because I like hockey. He said "non variable under the same conditions", which is completely true. You are wrong on this point. Move on and stop derailing the conversation. Stay ... on ... topic.