Science and Physics Proves Balloon Boy Flight Not Possible—Global Warming “Experts” Nervous

posted at 10:51 am on October 23, 2009 by Rovin
[ Enviro-nitwits ]   

During the incident Thursday, when Heene said his 37-pound son may have been inside the flying-saucer-shaped balloon, the sheriff’s department contacted a specialist at Colorado State University to determine whether it could carry the child.

Based on the dimensions for the balloon that Heene provided at the time, the specialist “determined that it was, in fact, possible for this balloon to have launched,” Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden told reporters Sunday.

But after they recovered the balloon and checked the actual measurements, authorities discovered “it was not capable of lifting off” with the boy on board, Alderden said.

The reason, according to the sheriff, is that the contraption weighs 18 pounds more than what Heene said.  (emphasis mine)    LINK

See what happens when a few numbers are changed to fit the argument?  Presto, you have “man made global warming”.  The formula for little Falcon Heene to soar into the blue Colorado skies was based of false information.  The nation got a lesson in physics that made perfect sense when the correct data was presented and last weeks balloon flight became a hoax, and yet they still refuse to question the computer models that the “scientific community” uses to produce the global warming hoax. Talk about “pre-existing conditions”.

Below is a good argument against this hoax, (man made global warming), that even I, (who got a C- in science) can understand.  And, while I’m quite certain there is a fair argument to refute this one, my contention is about the methods of achieving/proving data supplied by scientist and not necessarily the methods used to collect, or submit the data:

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong.

 Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.  (Submitted by NucEngineer (not verified) on Sat, 08/01/2009 – 10:28.  LINK

See ya on  the ski slopes……..hypothetically speaking.

Blowback