Hansen's model was interesting, because it did predict three different scenarios, depending on how much carbon would be emitted. Turns out, he was right, too.
Well, let's take a look...
Notice that scenario B, some efforts to contain carbon release, but not great efforts, has an excellent fit with the actual recorded rise in temperatures. This when deniers were predicting cooling. So yes, that's a really good result.
Let's see what that site says:
"The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well. "
Indeed, they have. From your link:
So the remarkably good prediction of 1985 continues into the new century.
Planetary physicists disagree with you. I'll go with the guys who make a living at it.
The fact that Hansen's model represented reality remarkably well, does increase one's confidence in it.
Actually, Copernicus noted difficulties with his numbers for that reason. But he did not say that the planets orbited the sun. He was quite aware of the likely fate he would have if he had done that.
He merely demonstrated that if one assumed circular orbits, that the positions of the planets would be more accurately and easily determined than if one assumed everything orbited the Earth. Which is quite true. But it was only better, not exact.
When Kepler finally got a good mathematical fit for orbital data, the good math convinced him to abandon the classical idea of circular orbits. Being a pretty good mathematician and an excellent scientist, Kepler realized that the math alone showed the elliptical nature of orbits.
I don't think you know what this graph says. Notice that the Pinatubo eruption was followed by smaller increases in temperatures than before. The cause is not CFCs; it's mostly sulfur areosols, producing a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...ruptions-can-alter-global-temperatures/350863
Well, let's take a look...
Notice that scenario B, some efforts to contain carbon release, but not great efforts, has an excellent fit with the actual recorded rise in temperatures. This when deniers were predicting cooling. So yes, that's a really good result.
Let's see what that site says:
"The first transient climate projections using GCMs are 30 years old this year, and they have stood up remarkably well. "
Indeed, they have. From your link:
So the remarkably good prediction of 1985 continues into the new century.
Planetary physicists disagree with you. I'll go with the guys who make a living at it.
The fact that Hansen's model represented reality remarkably well, does increase one's confidence in it.
Actually, Copernicus noted difficulties with his numbers for that reason. But he did not say that the planets orbited the sun. He was quite aware of the likely fate he would have if he had done that.
He merely demonstrated that if one assumed circular orbits, that the positions of the planets would be more accurately and easily determined than if one assumed everything orbited the Earth. Which is quite true. But it was only better, not exact.
When Kepler finally got a good mathematical fit for orbital data, the good math convinced him to abandon the classical idea of circular orbits. Being a pretty good mathematician and an excellent scientist, Kepler realized that the math alone showed the elliptical nature of orbits.
I don't think you know what this graph says. Notice that the Pinatubo eruption was followed by smaller increases in temperatures than before. The cause is not CFCs; it's mostly sulfur areosols, producing a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...ruptions-can-alter-global-temperatures/350863
