The anthropogenic
hypothesis passes the test of conforming to all we know about the physics of climate.
Not exact matches
A theory is an explanatory
hypothesis which has
passed test after
test, and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question.
If the
hypothesis implemented in a model
passes those
tests, then you need data to calibrate and verify, but data by itself is often a weak
test.
As is always the case in scientific research, new theories and
hypotheses must
pass the
test of hard facts and observations, in order to be validated or discarded.
It ultimately
tests the
hypothesis that there's more to the series than just Snakes and sneaking behind enemy lines, and for the most part, it
passes the
test.
One
hypothesis, for example, is that retesting reduces the pressure to unduly focus teaching effort on the marginal students — students who may or may not
pass — in the months before the initial
test, and thus teachers can give relatively more effort to the infra - marginal students, including those high - achieving students at little risk of failing.
Neither of these two competing (or complementary)
hypotheses have
passed this
test, as yet, although the underlying mechanisms for BOTH have been validated experimentally.
[Pat Michaels]: «Administrator Bolden is obligated to investigate the ethics of publishing a paper that the Director of the GISS laboratory knew could not
pass the most simple
test of
hypothesis.»
The specific question asked was how easy is it for a trend to
pass the significance
test (reject null
hypothesis of no trend) if that
test were prompted by a record breaking event.
The CAGW
hypothesis has not
passed this
test.
I almost get the sneaky suspicion that there is a fear that this
hypothesis might
pass the
test and that's why there is so much resistance to simply
testing it.
So if going forward no warming takes place up to around 2030, then the solar - climate connection would have
passed a very strong
test, as the main alternative
hypothesis (CO ₂) did not predict the pause and has consistently predicted more warming.
, but if you look at
hypotheses and their predictions,
passing rigorous century - long observational
tests is at least support for a theory to be used going forwards.
Parameter estimation is implicitly still
hypothesis testing — you are mapping out what ranges of
hypotheses would
pass or fail a
test.