Does climate change or global warming meet the scientific criteria of theory?

Question

A scientific theory is of course different than "theory" in everyday usage. Please, no personal opinions on global warming. I just want to know if it is an acceptable scientific theory (regardless of the controversy). Reliable sources which state that it's a theory (or not) would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks to everyone who answered so far. I haven't rated anyone's answer so far, and I'm keenly interested in the responses. Although, I'm a little leery about those who are using the word "fact" and "prove" since science does not deal in these absolutes. Instead, science accepts the best evidence to explain natural phenomena. I really would like to see some peer-reviewed literature which specifically addresses global warming as scientific theory.

Answer 1

Yes it is a scientific theory. Many pieces of data support climate change from the present to millions of years ago.

If you're referring to anthropogenic causes, that is theory as well. Copious amounts data back up premise, and climatologists have developed computer models that demonstrate and verify what we are seeing within some percentage of error (I'm sure you know 100% predictability is not possible).

NASA and NOAA has a lot to say on the subject.

However, when it comes to finding research papers on the subject you need to be subscribed to one of the peer-reviewed journalling sites.

But needless to say, it's an area of active research.

But if you're looking for one global warming theory, you won't find it. Global warming is the consensus of multiple disiplines of research within climatology. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and while we can say with high probability that human factors are one of the forcings, it is not the only forcing. Everything from aersols to cryospherics play a part.

Indeed, the real climate models used by NASA are run on massive supercomputers and are exceedingly complex.

There are always simple versions of theories (Gravity: what goes up must come down) and the truer modeling of the phenomenon (Einstein's Theory of general relativity). It all depends on how deep you want to dig.

~X~

Answer 2

In many ways it's now gone beyond a theory and is, for want of a better way of putting it, knocking on the door of scientific fact. Scientists tend to err on the side of caution and will describe something as 'probable' or 'very likely' when other people would have used a more conclusive term such as 'certain' or 'guaranteed'.

Before accepting a theory as fact scientists like to test the theory to destruction, will try and find fault, other explanations, weaknesses. This has been ongoing for a long time now and even though the subject has been approached in many different ways by a multitude of scientific disciplines the theory remains watertight.

I myself have been involved, and still am involved, in trying to find fault with the thoery. Frequently, suggestions and other potential explanations are put forward and whilst these may sometimes affect certain mechanics and / or the methodology, the conclusion remains the same. We haven't yet exhausted every possible alternative explanation and until such times global warming will probably remain just a 'theory'. However, these alternative theories are getting more and more extreme and less and less likely to be a contributory factor let alone a primary cause.

Often in science a principle will be examined by just a single branch of science - medicine, chemistry, botany etc but the global warming concept is an exception in that it's been examined by a wide range of scientific disciplines, each approaching the subject from a different perspective. There have been climatologists, meteorologists, glaciologists, astro-physicists, biologists, geographers, geologists, oceanographers and many more. If these different studies produced a variety of results then questions would need to be asked about the validity of some of the claims that have been made. This isn't the case and the answer to the fundemental questions come back the same each time - namely that global warming is occuring and that human activity is largely responsible.

Where there tends to be differences is in respect of future predictions. The predictions concur that there will be continued temperature increases, rising sea levels, spread of diseases etc but there are variations in the quantifications of same.

Answer 3

A scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. Theories can be good or bad, speculative or well-established, fundamental or epiphenomenal. There certainly is a "theory" behind global warming, which seeks to (and largely does) explain the observed data. The theory is the underlying understanding of planetary atmospheres and the various "forcings" that drive the temperature of a planet.

The explanations provided by scientific theories are what gives science its ability to make predictions, to the extent that science can make predictions (which is not always---the limits on the accuracy of predictions are as important as the predictions themselves). The extent that we expect global warming to continue, and to proceed in a certain way (i.e. so many degrees of average warming in 100 years), depend on the theory of global warming.

In my opinion, this theory is:
1) well-established
2) falsifiable
3) a good explanation of most of the data.

It is, therefore not only a theory but a good theory as well. Of course like all scientific theories, it is subject to revision.

Answer 4

Without taking a side I would say no. A scientific theory is based on what all the evidence of the time shows, if there is conflicting evidence than it must be explained or a new idea is needed. We are not seeing that now.

Regardless of your stance on the issue you have to admit that their is evidence pointing to man for global warming and also evidence pointing to natural causes. That means there needs to be an active scientific debate between the two sides. One must explain the other sides arguments to become a theory. Currently there is no active debate, the man made global warming side has claimed to be right and will not discuss any further evidence.

This means global warming is not a scientific theory. Also this refusal to look at new evidence is a shameful disregard for the scientific process which by definition means constant interpretation of new evidence on a particular issue.

Answer 5

It is very much an accepted scientific theory and fact. The only debate is how much has mankind contributed to it. without a greenhouse effect this planet would be as barren as Mars ,but with a runaway greenhouse effect it could become as climatically violent and catastrophic for life as Venus. I personally think we have accelerated it but that is not to say that we were not in a period of global warming anyway.it is important to note that the planet has in the past been even hotter than it is now.How hot it gets will determine not just our survival as a species but that of many animals. I think the future is looking good for lizards again

Answer 6

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Global warming is absolutely a scientific theory.

Contrary to what's stated above, the opposing theories are widely discussed. They're just not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and virtually every scientific organization. Because actual data shows they're wrong.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Answer 7

Keep in mind that YOU USE EVERY DAY DEVICES ON WHICH YOUR SAFETY RELIES ONLY ON EMPIRICAL DATA !!!

And you still jump in your car... you are still alive...
You still go in buildings made of concrete even if we do not understand its nanostructure... !

So relying on the empirical is a large part of science !!!

Answer 8

No, the correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentrations is extremely poor, the anthropogenic effects on atmospheric CO2 are based on vague estimates, and the effect of the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (water vapor) is ignored.

Answer 9

No