Another person that has listened to way too many fundies preaching that evolution is "just" a theory. Go take a 6th grade science class and pay attention during the scientific method lesson.
Fact : Scientific Theories are just that, theories. When they become fact, they call them scientific laws.
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.
A scientific theory needs to be validated by observation.
Based on the global warming theory, computer models were built. None of the computer models builds were able to predict or explain lack of warming of the last 16 years.
Something is clearly amiss on how scientists understand the earth climate system.
And now they are pointing at natural variability as a reason for the lack of warming.
Of course any inquisitive mind will ask if the natural variability can stall the temperatures despite rising CO2 concentrations, why couldn't natural variability have caused the rising temperatures in the first place?
The response from CAGW is that it can't be because otherwise the CO2 as the main driver of the global warming theory would be invalidated, despite the science having barely any clue how these natural cycles actually work.
A scientific theory has been validated by observation. A hypothesis needs to be validated by observation or data.
When you don't know what of are talking about its easy to be wrong.
Huh? If you know we haven't caused climate change before and sea levels rose by feet at the end of the ice age, why make that argument in the first place? Kind of contradicting.
Say that to the agw crowd.
The problem is that they call the agw a scientific theory when it is only an hypothesis.
No I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
There is also a difference between what the media wants it to be and what textbooks want it to be.
Say that to the agw crowd.
The problem is that they call the agw a scientific theory when it is only an hypothesis.
A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed warming pause has virtually disappeared.
So, best not to do anything to stem the harm man is causing to the environment until even the most skeptical, pro-business layperson is convinced there is a problem?
I find people like you very hard to understand.
Gravity is a law
General relativity is a theory (and it's better than the law of gravitation)
No I'm pretty sure they know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
The article in nature doesn't say what you think it does. We can measure the incoming and outgoing energy of the Earth. There is more coming in then leaving. This article is showing where a large portion of that excess has been going for the last sixteen years.
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
16 years of CS being wrong all along is suppose to help pro-AGW how?
You don't know what a scientific theory actually is do you?
Scientific Theory
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next stepknown as a theoryin the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
and
"When used in non-scientific context, the word theory implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Can you link me to the instruments that record incoming and departing energy and their data sets showing more energy in than energy out?
If there was more energy coming than leaving we would have a runaway temperature.
We don't have so because a warmer body release energy faster. Of course the atmosphere hasn't been warming.
And then there is weather, which is a good way for the planet to transfer and lose energy.
There is convection, there is ocean circulation, air circulation - all mechanisms present in the planet but absent from a glass greenhouse or a microwave.
The article isn't showing where the energy went, they are hypothesizing where it might be if the AGW theory is correct. There is no data backing up these hypotheses.
Is a scientific theory still a scientific theory if the observations are contrary to it and if the predictions are wrong?
Is a scientific theory still a scientific theory if the observations are contrary to it and if the predictions are wrong?
Our species has built itself with a pretty stable climate. We haven't experience different outside of some every so often events like the little ice age. But a drastic climatic change can do lots of damage from rising sea levels, to ruining farm land (i.e. too hot/cold, wet/dry, etc), to acidification of the oceans causing a collapse of the ecosystem there. Any of those would have a drastic impact on our species, and data shows all are possible and have happened before.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.