A discussão sobre o "vídeo" foi dada como terminada pelo Blasfémias?

Como disse na minha última nota tenho vindo a participar numa discussão (curiosa, a diversos títulos) no Blasfémias, a-propósito de um vídeo aí colocado sobre o comportamento do gelo na Antártica (ver aqui). Os meus extensos comentários (em grande parte, "copy and paste" de notas do RealClimate e do ClimateProgress) foram sempre imediatamente publicados. Desta última vez, não. Estou curioso, donde a pergunta em pergunta em epígrafe.

Em todo o caso, reproduzo (em parte) aqui o artigo da Grist que tentei (sem sucesso, até ao momento - pode ser que quem autoriza a publicação, não esteja disponível: estamos no fim de semana) colocar num comentário. O artigo discute o trabalho dos climatologistas com os modelos: é muito pedagógico.

É possível que regresse a este assunto do Blasfémias.

- ler tudo em The problem with climate-model criticism | Grist:

"I have a paper [PDF] in this week’s Science discussing the water vapor feedback.

It is a Perspective, meaning that it is a summary of the existing literature rather than new scientific results. In it, my co-author Steve Sherwood and I discuss the mountain of evidence in support of a strong and positive water vapor feedback.

Interestingly, it seems that just about everybody now agrees water vapor provides a robustly strong and positive feedback. Roy Spencer even sent me email saying that he agrees.

What I want to focus on here is model verification. If you read the blogs, you’ll often see people say things like “the models are completely unvalidated.” What they mean is that no one has produced a 100-year climate run with a model, then waited a hundred years, and evaluated how the model did. There are many practical problems with doing this, but the biggest is that by the time you determine if your model was right or not, it would be too late to take any meaningful action to head off the problem. Of course, we could compare the last 150 years of observations to climate model runs for that same period. This has been done, and the models do a pretty good job. But because the models are constructed with knowledge of the present climate, this is clearly a weaker test than one in which you do not know what the answer is in advance.

[...]

The result of this is that we can have a reasonably high confidence that we will get a few degrees of warming by the end of the century if emissions are not reduced."