The "geologist" now claims he was off by only 10%, when he was actually off by 9900%, do you trust his science?
JimZ is now claiming that he was only off by 10% regarding the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. In a previous question, he claimed that there was 1000 times as much water vapor as CO2, using the calculation ".4/0.0004 = 1000" to "prove" that. While 0.0004 is about the molar fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.4 is a factor of 100 bigger than the real molar fraction of water vapor. That would mean that the value he gave was not off by "10%", but actually by 9900%. Shouldn't a competent scientist be able to understand this, after it has been explained to him?
The reason I'm harping on this is because it's a clear matter of being right or wrong with information, and JImZ (and all the other deniers) still don't get it. If their denial is based on false information (like JimZ's wrong value) then it's clear that it's not about science, it's about politics. YOU HAVE TO CARE WHETHER WHAT YOU SAY IS RIGHT OR WRONG!!!!!!!
It appears that the troll has answered this with at least two different accounts, and when I say "answered", I mean taken up space and repeated lies. One more time, I am neither Cowboy nor Darwinist--I have only this single account.
Anonymous: As I've said perhaps a hundred times, I don't have other accounts. As much as you would like to believe that I do, I don't do that. My single account is open and visible for inspection--that's because I believe what I say. As far as "attacking" JimZ, I have no problems with him personally, but if people misrepresent and lie about the science here, I will point that out. That's why I'm here.
- skeptikLv 74 weeks agoFavourite answer
Well, you know. 0.4% or 0.4 times. What's the difference, really?
- Al PLv 73 weeks ago
First, given the mean, the particle ratio of water vapor to carbon dioxide is about 10; not much has changed since the last time we worked on this.
It's pretty meaningless to consider transient ratios in the atmosphere when we have experimental averages to use. Water vapor concentration is highly variable. Under transient conditions, there could be (UP TO) 4*10^5+ more CO2 than H2O in a unit volume instead of the reverse : [H2O 400,000 ppm] / [ CO2 400 ppm] = 1000
I'm guessing the following happened:
H2O / CO2 = 4000 ppm / 400 ppm= 10 = true
0.004 / 0.0004 = 10 = true
H2O % / CO2 % = 0.4 % / 0.04 % = 10 = true
But when one incorrectly mixes notations we get the following with a stray percentage symbol.
H2O % / CO2 decimal = 0.4 % / 0.0004 = 1000 % = untrue
Do we have a better chance of measuring 4*10^5 ppm water vapor in the atmosphere than seeing JimZ's math workings?
- Andrew SmithLv 74 weeks ago
Percentages have no place in order of magnitude calculations. I am not justifying any answers because you can get different answers that are still valid. For example if he gets 0.1% and the ratio is actually 10 % then you can justly claim that the difference is 9.9%. The RATIO of the two is 100:1 or is it 1:100? ie the incorrect value is 1% of the correct value ie 99%less. But the correct value / incorrect one is 9900% more. All quite meaningless. He is out by a FACTOR of two orders of magnitude. The percentages are only useful for small changes around an approximately common value.
- JimZLv 74 weeks ago
Dirac was an earth scientist which is a joke name for a geologist...hint.. he isn't really a geologist. Dirac believed in Peak Oil 10 years ago. The reason he believed in Peak Oil is precisely the same reason he believes in every other leftist fantasy including CAGW. Dirac is a shill for a hate-filled political agenda, their useful idiot. Dirac had a different name when he claimed we were at Peak Oil. I'd probably change my name too is made idiotic claims like that and pretended to be an expert. In case anybody doesn't know it, Peak Oil means we have found all we could and are running out. I remember laughing about it and mocking those that believed in Peak Oil. It isn't that I was that smart that I knew it was leftist garbage. It is that some people are so ignorant and gullible that they fall for political diatribe masquerading as science.
Here is a pretty good article I read today which Dirac and his cadre of brain-dead leftists should read
Since it is common sense and helps to explain their cult-like beliefs which is based on one chicken little prediction after another but I have found the cultists want to believe their garbage and aren't really interested in facts and science. If they were actually interested about science, they would leave their cult.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- WyomingLv 74 weeks ago
Not a question.
this isn't a chat room.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
JimZ is not a well man, his mind was corrupted in the 50's by McCarthyism and he's never been right since, he's like one of those Japanese soldiers they sometimes find on some island still hiding from the Americans since WW2. I mean the guy is best friends with Bigfoot! Needs I say more.
- 4 weeks ago
Cowboy and Dirac and Darwinist are all the same person. How stupid does one have to be to blatantly answer his own stupid question?
- CowboyLv 64 weeks ago
JimZ is a religious bigot and an anti-science conservative warrior battling the libertards over total BS - LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
such an idiot - republicans are ALL fools.....