In post 455, we see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dfrank
JayUtah,
Thanks for the science. It will take me a while to wrap my mind around it. It is research time. Sorry for the personal attack. I heard it can be because it can’t be till I want to throw-up.
|
I assume that was supposed to be "I heard it can['t] be [water] because it can't be till I want to throw-up." Yet, way back in
post 33 I said:
This was discussed in your previous thread. Did you forget it? There are both pressure and temperature issues. At that pressure, there is a very narrow temperature range where liquid water can exist: Too high and there is vapor, too low and there is ice. During summer the maximum recorded atmospheric temperature during the day was too high, and it dropped well below freezing every night. There would only be a brief period with a "just right" temperature. That would not be conducive to bodies of liquid surface water existing for extended periods.
Ultimately, as previously noted, there could be rare eruptions of liquid underground water. Given the conditions, it is expected that most underground water would be extremely well frozen permafrost. All of this means that, if you're going to suggest an image shows flowing surface water, you are going to need very good evidence to support it. You haven't provided it.
And that's where we still are. You aren't being told "it can't be." You are being asked for evidence. We're still at the same point we were at the beginning of this thread, and where we were in the earlier thread. You haven't provided the evidence required to support your position.