{"id":222363,"date":"2022-10-05T18:05:29","date_gmt":"2022-10-05T16:05:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=222363"},"modified":"2022-10-05T18:05:33","modified_gmt":"2022-10-05T16:05:33","slug":"lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=222363","title":{"rendered":"Lord Monckton Responds to Spencer\u2019s Critique"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yesterday I posted a\u00a0critique<\/a>\u00a0of Lord Christopher Monckton\u2019s\u00a0latest explanation<\/a>\u00a0of why he believes climate sensitivity is low. At issue is his claim that researchers have somehow neglected that the feedback response to a climate perturbation (e.g., how much warming occurs from adding CO2 to the atmosphere) needs to include the feedback response to the total emission temperature of the system, which he claims then greatly reduces the system \u201cgain factor\u201d and thus calculated climate sensitivity. I maintain that this is not how climate sensitivity in climate models is determined \u2014 only actual physical processes are modeled \u2014 and I used clouds as an example of why the system response to small perturbations cannot be determined by including the response of a cold (e.g., 2.7 Kelvin) Earth to solar heating (this is what I claim his argument amounts to when he includes the total system temperature in his system gain calculation). While he and I agree sensitivity to increasing CO2 is likely to be low, I laid out my explanation of why his reasoning is faulty. I invited him to respond, and I present that response, below, without comment. At a minimum this exchange might help us better understand exactly what Christopher is saying from a physical process standpoint, rather than a \u201csystem gain\u201d standpoint.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am most grateful to my friend Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the world\u2019s foremost and most expert meteorological researchers and commentators, for the attention he has kindly devoted to our conclusion that official climatology has an insufficient understanding of control theory and has, therefore, led itself into a persistent and grave error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am still more grateful to him for this opportunity to reply to his latest posting on this topic, so as to set the record straight. Roy talks of my \u201cfeedback arguments suggesting a very low climate sensitivity\u201d. Let me begin my response to that posting by clearing up the misconceptions that are evident in that thought. First, the arguments we make are not my arguments alone. My team includes many experts more than usually competent in both theoretical and applied control theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, our arguments do not \u201csuggest a very low climate sensitivity\u201d. Consider the position at the temperature equilibrium in 1850. The reference temperature that year was the 267.1 K sum of the 259.6 K sunshine or emission temperature and the 7.5 K directly forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases; and the observed HadCRUT equilibrium global mean surface temperature was the 287.5 K sum of 259.6 K and the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect, which itself comprises the 7.5 K reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity and 20.4 K total feedback response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early papers on equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) based on explicitly quantifying feedback response, from Hansen (1984) onwards, show that the original reason why climatology imagined ECS to be of order 4 K was that the system-gain factor (the ratio of equilibrium sensitivity after feedback response and reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback response) was 27.9 \/ 7.5, or 3.7 (or, using the round numbers in vogue at the time, 32 \/ 8, or 4). Since midrange reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) is 1.05 K, it was thus imagined that midrange ECS was 3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate often enough, it became impossible for the climatological community to move away from it. They were stuck with it. The whole shoddy house of cards would collapse if they revised it significantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The correct system-gain factor for 1850 was not 27.9 \/ 7.5, or 3.7. It was (259.6 + 27.9) \/ (259.6 + 7.5), or 1.08. In effect, climatologists had forgotten the Sun was shining and had, therefore, forgotten that there is a feedback response to emission temperature. They had overlooked that large emission-temperature feedback response and had added all of it to the actually small feedback response to preindustrial greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity. They had thus reached their high midrange ECS of about 4 K by imagining, incorrectly, that the feedback response to emission temperature was zero, which is nonsense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roy says that the underlined words are not true. [\u201cFeedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.\u201d] When I first realized that climatologists \u2014 on both sides of the debate \u2014 simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was a friend of one of my distinguished co-authors did not realize they were true either. But he had his own lab. So, he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another control theorist, also a co-author, suggested that we should consult a national laboratory of physical engineering to put the point beyond doubt. So, we did, and the lab came to exactly the same conclusion, after months of delay because the operator\u2019s body temperature again interfered with the readings, and he had not thought to run wires into an adjacent room. So, the matter is not in doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, Roy incorrectly assumes that we maintain that \u201cthe climate system\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s response to a small perturbation from its current state might be discerned from its response to the presence of solar heating assuming an initial cold Earth\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality, we start not with \u201can initial cold Earth\u201d but with the climate of 1850. We do not need to know what might have happened at 2.73 K ambient temperature. In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor \u2014 the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature \u2014 was 287.5 \/ 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08. All we say, therefore, in relation to 1850 (we go back no further than that) is that ECS based on climatology\u2019s original method adjusted to take account of the fact that in 1850 the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We then demonstrate via a detailed energy-budget calculation that using mainstream midrange initial conditions it is perfectly possible that the system-gain factor following a CO2 doubling compared with 1850 remains somewhat below 1.08 and that, therefore, ECS is about 1.1 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we also draw explicit attention to the fact that, precisely because feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature, and precisely because the base signal, emission temperature, is 30 times larger than the perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases, even a very small change in the feedback regime compared with the equilibrium in 1850 would exert a disproportionately large influence on ECS. In fact, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor at a new moment of equilibrium compared with 1850 would push ECS up by 300% to the 4 K that is the CMIP6 models\u2019 current midrange projection. Therefore, our method does not prove that ECS is low: instead, it shows that it may be low, but proves that ECS is not reliably constrainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We draw the conclusion, applying standard feedback analysis, that it is simply not possible to derive ECS as climatologists now do, by diagnosing feedback strengths from the outputs of the general-circulation models and then deriving ECS therefrom. Or, to put it another way, the interval of system-gain factors implicit in IPCC\u2019s current 3 [2, 5] K ECS interval is only 1.10 [1.09, 1.13], an interval so tiny as to fall well within the published uncertainty envelope of feedback strengths, rendering any attempt to predict ECS no better than guesswork.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Albeit by an entirely different method, we reach the same conclusion as Pat Frank in his important paper of 2019, in which he demonstrated that the envelope of uncertainty in ECS arising from propagation of the published uncertainty in a single climatic variable \u2014 the low-cloud fraction \u2014 was so large that all projections of ECS that have ever made fall within that envelope and are, therefore, mere guesswork. They have no predictive validity at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roy devotes much of his article to the question of clouds. However, in the entire posting by me to which his piece is a response, the word \u201cclouds\u201d occurs only once, and in a context peripheral to the central argument. We point out, in common with Professor Lindzen, that at emission temperature, when by definition there are no greenhouse gases in the air, there would be no clouds either, wherefore, by the Professor\u2019s calculation, emission temperature would not be 259.6 K but more like 271 K, which would of course reduce ECS still further. However, we explicitly point out that we take no account of that fact at all. Our analysis does not depend on the value of the cloud or any individual feedback. Roy says our analysis implies that further warming will not be mitigated by an increase in cloud cover. But our method carries no such implication, for it takes no view on ECS, other than to point out that on the basis of mainstream, midrange data it is possible that ECS may be as little as 1.1 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roy then says climate sensitivity does not depend upon feedback analysis. Indeed, models do not implement feedback formulism directly. Instead, feedback strengths are diagnosed from the models\u2019 outputs (see e.g., Soden & Held 2006 or Vial et al. 2013 for the method). However, the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Therefore, feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to it and we may, as we have done, apply feedback formulism to the published ECS interval. We may, as we have done, show that in this as in any system where the base signal exceeds the perturbation signal by orders of magnitude it is not possible reliably to predict the output signal in response to a given small perturbation in the total input signal where, as in the climate, the envelope of uncertainty in feedback strength grossly exceeds the interval of uncertainty in the absolute system-gain factor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is for this reason that it matters that climatologist had, in effect, forgotten that the Sun is shining and that, therefore, at any time in the industrial era, in the presence of the greenhouse gases, some 29\/30ths of total feedback response is feedback response to the emission temperature \u2014 i.e., to the surprising fact that the Sun is shining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is simple to deduce, again from mainstream, midrange data, that each $1 billion spent on attempting to reach global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would abate between one five-millionth and one millionth of a Kelvin of future global warming, at a total cost potentially exceeding total global corporate profits over the next 30 years (and indefinitely thereafter). Even if there were a real \u201cclimate emergency\u201d, the expenditure would not be justifiable, because it would purchase an abatement amounting to only 3\/8 K (if you believe IPCC\u2019s midrange ECS estimate) or 1\/7 K (if instead we note that since 1990 the world has warmed at little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate). In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age \u2014 the decision that the UK Government under the unlamented Boris Johnson had in effect taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions, because, as Pat Frank has already demonstrated in his way and as we have demonstrated in ours, all predictions of global warming are mere guesswork. Would you trash the Western economies, and continue the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events? We wouldn\u2019t. I do hope that this has cleared up some misconceptions about our result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Christopher Monckton (4 October 2022)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

via Roy Spencer, PhD.<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/ift.tt\/KnEse0H<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

October 5, 2022<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

They had overlooked that large emission-temperature feedback response and had added all of it to the actually small feedback response to preindustrial greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":222365,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-222363","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","9":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-253.png?fit=1432%2C1020&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-VQv","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":149795,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=149795","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":0},"title":"How to constrain unconstrained global-warming predictions","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/07\/2021","format":false,"excerpt":"By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Andy May\u2019s splendid brace of articles about climate sensitivity, which gives a concise and elegant summary of close to half a century of scientific debate, concludes as follows: \u201cThe \u2018consensus\u2019 estimates of the impact of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, on climate and global warming are\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/0image-20.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/0image-20.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/0image-20.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/0image-20.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195310,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=195310","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":1},"title":"INTERESTING LETTER BY LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Your suggestion that warmer worldwide weather has caused net loss of life, particularly among the world\u2019s fast-declining population of poor people, is fashionable but misplaced. The Editor,\u00a0The Lancet Sir, Your notion of a \u201cclimate crisis\u201d (editorial\u00a0\"Climate and COVID-19: converging crises,\"\u00a0December 2;\u00a0click here for the PDF), though fashionable among the\u00a0classe politique,\u00a0is\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-10-133358.png?fit=792%2C847&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-10-133358.png?fit=792%2C847&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-10-133358.png?fit=792%2C847&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screenshot-2022-04-10-133358.png?fit=792%2C847&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":180782,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=180782","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":2},"title":"The New Climate of Panic Among the Panic-Mongers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/01\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"A new climate panic is gripping the far-Left profiteers of doom. Those few of Them who are climate scientists have made fame and fortune by telling us the world is toast unless the once-free West (though responsible for only a fifth of the world\u2019s sins of emission) commits economic hara-kiri.\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/bfb70375a320fcfba457348ed01b97a0.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/bfb70375a320fcfba457348ed01b97a0.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/bfb70375a320fcfba457348ed01b97a0.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/bfb70375a320fcfba457348ed01b97a0.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222184,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=222184","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":3},"title":"No, Climatologists Did Not \u201cForget the Sun Was Shining\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate model feedbacks are not prescribed; they are diagnosed After the model is run from model output.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00Screenshot-2022-10-04-191143.png?fit=882%2C342&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00Screenshot-2022-10-04-191143.png?fit=882%2C342&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00Screenshot-2022-10-04-191143.png?fit=882%2C342&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00Screenshot-2022-10-04-191143.png?fit=882%2C342&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":194869,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=194869","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":4},"title":"How Climatologists Forgot the Sun Was Shining: Your Questions Answered","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Regular readers of WUWT will know that some years ago my team of eminent climatologists and control theorists discovered that, remarkably, climatology had \u2013 at a vital point in its calculations of how much warming we may cause \u2013 forgotten that the Sun was shining.\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screenshot-2022-04-06-195422.png?fit=1071%2C617&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screenshot-2022-04-06-195422.png?fit=1071%2C617&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screenshot-2022-04-06-195422.png?fit=1071%2C617&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screenshot-2022-04-06-195422.png?fit=1071%2C617&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screenshot-2022-04-06-195422.png?fit=1071%2C617&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":185330,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=185330","url_meta":{"origin":222363,"position":5},"title":"UCL Professor: \u201cModelling climate change is much easier\u201d\u00a0than Weather","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/01\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Image from \"Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model\" Guest essay by Eric Worrall The diverse predictions produced by 20 major research centres represent \u201cstrength in numbers\u201d, according to UCL Professor of Earth System Science\u00a0Mark Maslin. Three reasons why climate change models are our best hope\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0Monckton-Irreducibly-Simple-Climate-Model.png?fit=750%2C460&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0Monckton-Irreducibly-Simple-Climate-Model.png?fit=750%2C460&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0Monckton-Irreducibly-Simple-Climate-Model.png?fit=750%2C460&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0Monckton-Irreducibly-Simple-Climate-Model.png?fit=750%2C460&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=222363"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222363\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":222368,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222363\/revisions\/222368"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/222365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=222363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=222363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=222363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}