{"id":269438,"date":"2023-07-25T19:59:31","date_gmt":"2023-07-25T17:59:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269438"},"modified":"2023-07-25T19:59:33","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T17:59:33","slug":"how-climate-models-get-clouds-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269438","title":{"rendered":"How Climate Models Get Clouds\u00a0Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

Why Did IMF Disinvite Nobel Laureate?<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2 Coalition explains.\u00a0\u00a0Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022)\u00a0Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF<\/strong>\u00a0on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening,\u00a0the Director<\/strong>\u00a0of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John\u2019s July 25 zoom talk and\u00a0summarily and immediately canceled the talk.<\/strong>\u00a0Technically, it was \u201cpostponed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Clauser had previously criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for<\/strong>\u00a0work in the development of computer models predicting global warming and told President Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies. Dr. Clauser has\u00a0developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process<\/strong>\u00a0to existing models. The process involves the\u00a0visible light reflected by cumulus clouds<\/strong>\u00a0that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides\u00a0a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth\u2019s temperature.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently, he addressed the\u00a0Korea Quantum Conference where he stated, \u201cI don\u2019t believe there is a climate crisis\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0and expressed his belief that\u00a0\u201ckey processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

What Difference Clouds Make in Climate Models<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Obviously the Clauser presentation is not accessible and I don\u2019t find a link to a publication concerning his treatment of clouds in climate models.  But we can see how the models react to clouds by means of an important paper The Mechanisms of Cloudiness Evolution Responsible for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity in Climate Model INM-CM4-8<\/strong><\/a> by Evgeny Volodin AGU 03\/12\/2021.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Abstract<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Current climate models demonstrate large discrepancy in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The effects of cloudiness parameterization changes on the ECS of the INM-CM4-8 climate model were investigated. This model shows the lowest ECS among CMIP6 models.\u00a0Reasonable changes in the parameterization of the degree of cloudiness yielded ECS variability of 1.8\u20134.1 K in INM-CM4-8, which was more than half of the interval for the CMIP6 models.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0three principal mechanisms<\/strong>\u00a0responsible for the increased ECS were\u00a0increased<\/strong>\u00a0cloudiness\u00a0dissipation in warmer climates<\/strong>\u00a0due to the increased water vapor deficit in the non-cloud fraction of a cell,\u00a0decreased cloudiness generation<\/strong>\u00a0in the atmospheric boundary layer in warm climates, and the instantaneous cloud response to CO2 increases due to\u00a0stratification<\/strong>\u00a0changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Introduction<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In CMIP6 the lowest and highest ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) values are 1.8 and 5.6 K,<\/strong>\u00a0respectively (Zelinka et al., 2020). Climate response to some external forcing produces feedbacks. Positive feedback enhances the response to forcing, negative feedback weakens it. Analysis of climate feedback shows that\u00a0cloud feedback is the principal reason for the broad range of ECS<\/strong>\u00a0(Zelinka et al., 2020).\u00a0Clouds (especially low clouds)\u00a0<\/strong>are significantly\u00a0reduced with global warming<\/strong>\u00a0in models with high ECS<\/strong>, resulting in positive feedback. Models with low sensitivity show small cloudiness changes with global warming;\u00a0some models feature an increase in low clouds in warmer climates, creating a negative feedback<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clouds produce shortwave and longwave radiative effects.<\/strong>\u00a0The shortwave cloud radiative effect\u00a0(SW CRE) is generally negative<\/strong>, because cloudiness reflects solar radiation that would otherwise be absorbed by the climate system. The shortwave effect is\u00a0usually strongest for low clouds<\/strong>\u00a0that have high amounts of liquid water and high albedos. The longwave cloud radiative effect\u00a0(LW CRE) is generally positive,<\/strong>\u00a0because cloud tops are usually much colder than the surface of the Earth; thus,\u00a0thermal radiation from the cloud top is much lower<\/strong>\u00a0than that from the surface.\u00a0Negative\/positive CRE produces cooling\/warming from clouds.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The goal of this study is that we turn off some mechanisms<\/strong>\u00a0responsible for large-scale cloud evolution that lead to increase or decrease ECS,\u00a0and ECS is changed by the factor of more than 2.<\/strong>\u00a0The role of a chosen mechanism in decrease or increase of ECS can be clearly seen. At the same time, all model versions show preindustrial climate with systematic biases compared to that for the version used in CMIP6.\u00a0A realistic way of estimating the impact of change in parameterization on cloud feedback<\/strong>\u00a0by keeping the cloud mean state realistic in all model versions and running 4xCO2 experiments rather than uniform +4K experiments are used in this study.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Table 1. Summary of Model Versions<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Note. Equilibrium climate sensitivity ECS (K), effective radiation forcing ERF (W m\u22122), climate feedback parameter \u03bb (W m\u22122 K\u22121), shortwave cloud radiative feedback \u0421RFSW, longwave cloud radiative feedback \u0421RFLW, net cloud radiative feedback \u0421RFNET (W m\u22122 K\u22121) and instantaneous cloud radiative forcing change \u0394CREINST (Wm\u22122).<\/em>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0ECS estimation method<\/strong>\u00a0is commonly used in CMIP5 and CMIP6 and was proposed by Gregory et al. (2004). The two model runs performed were\u00a0the control run<\/strong>, in which\u00a0all forcings were fixed at preindustrial levels<\/strong>,\u00a0and the<\/strong>\u00a0run where the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was four times higher than in the control run\u00a0(4CO2 run).<\/strong>\u00a0The initial state for both runs was the same and taken from a sufficiently long control run. Each run had a length of 150 years. Subsequently, the\u00a0global mean difference of GMST and the heat balance at the top of atmosphere (THB)<\/strong>\u00a0for 4CO2 and the control run were\u00a0calculated for each model year.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Results of the sensitivity experiments performed with the five climate model versions.<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Version 1 shows a very low ECS of 1.8 K<\/strong>\u00a0due to a low\u00a0negative climate feedback parameter<\/strong>\u00a0value of \u22121.46 W m\u22122 K\u22121 (interval from \u22120.6 to \u22121.8 W m\u22122 K\u22121 for CMIP5 and CMIP6) and a low ERF value of 2.7 W m\u22122 (intervals of 2.6\u20134.4 and 2.7\u20134.3 W m\u22122 for CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively, Zelinka et al., 2020). The low ECS was accompanied by\u00a0mostly negative CRF in both the SW and LW spectral intervals<\/strong>\u00a0(Figure 2 below).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 2\u00a0 Shortwave (top), longwave (middle) and net (bottom) cloud radiation feedback (Wm\u22122 K\u22121) for model version 1 (purple), 2 (yellow), 3 (red), 4(green), and 5 (blue). Data are multiplied by cosine of latitude.<\/strong><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The parameterization replacement scheme for cloudiness in\u00a0version 2<\/strong>\u00a0dramatically changed all the parameters, and the\u00a0ECS more than doubled to 3.8 K.<\/strong>\u00a0ERF increased to 3.8 W m\u22122, without changes to the radiation code because \u0394CREINST changed from \u22120.88 W m\u22122 to \u22120.13 W m\u22122. Additionally, the climate feedback parameter increased from \u22121.46 W m\u22122 K\u22121 to \u22121.0 W m\u22122 K\u22121. In version 2, global warming was associated with decreased cloudiness at all levels. The\u00a0net cloud radiative feedback became positive<\/strong>. Version 2 yielded significantly increased net and SW cloud radiative feedbacks at all latitudes compared with version 1. Analysis of the sensitivity experiment results of versions 3\u20135 helps understand the mechanisms of these significant changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Version 3 features a suppressed mechanism of high tropical cloudiness<\/strong>\u00a0due to decreased convective mass flux and higher ECS than version 2 (4.1 K); however, the\u00a0change is not very pronounced.<\/strong>\u00a0The LW CRF in the tropics increases in version 3 compared to version 2. The decrease in SW CRE is not very pronounced; therefore, increased net CRF increases ECS. This confirms our hypothesis that suppressing the decrease in tropical cloudiness should increase ECS and that the\u00a0impact of this mechanism on ECS is noticeable but not very strong.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ECS is noticeably lower in version 4 (2.9 K) than in version 2.<\/strong>\u00a0Thus, the mechanism of the decrease in boundary layer cloudiness due to\u00a0decreased cloudiness generation by boundary layer turbulence is crucial for ECS.<\/strong>\u00a0SW and LW CRF decreased in version 4 compared to version 2, primarily in the tropics and subtropics.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mechanism of increased cloud dissipation<\/strong>\u00a0under global warming conditions was\u00a0suppressed in version 5, ECS was reduced to 2.5 K,<\/strong>\u00a0and the climate feedback parameter decreased to \u22121.56 W m\u22122 K\u22121. Additionally, the SW CRF decreased in version 5 compared with version 4, primarily in the tropics and subtropics. In this version, all the mechanisms that decrease clouds with increased temperature, as raised in the previous section, are suppressed. The principal reason for the ECS difference between versions 1 and 5 is the\u00a0instantaneous adjustment rather than the feedback<\/strong>\u00a0(see Table 1). \u0394CREINST values in versions 1 and 5 were \u22120.88 and 0.16 W m\u22122, respectively.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Conclusion<\/strong><\/em><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

All model versions demonstrate similar model bias values<\/strong> for annual mean CRE, near-surface temperature, and precipitation; thus, determining a relation between present-day climate simulation model quality and ECS is difficult. Version 1 has slightly better quality (because it is a CMIP6 version) due to extensive tuning. The cloudiness scheme used in version 1 contained the dependence of low clouds on stratification. An increase in CO2 leads to more stable stratification and more low clouds and may be the primary cause of the low ECS.<\/strong> Bretherton (2015) and Geoffroy et al. (2017) obtained similar results. The decrease in clouds in warmer climates due to the mixing of cloud air with the unsaturated environment was also stated in a review by Gettelman and Sherwood (2016). Our results confirm those by<\/strong> Bony et al. (2006), Brient and Bony (2012), and others that a significant change in the response of low clouds to global warming leads to significant changes in cloud radiative feedback and ECS.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Comment<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The main finding is: If warming increases low clouds, then SW (incoming solar radiation) is reduced, counteracting the warming, in effect a negative feedback.  That is consistent with Clauser\u2019s position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

The main finding is: If warming increases low clouds, then SW (incoming solar radiation) is reduced, counteracting the warming, in effect a negative feedback.\u00a0 That is consistent with Clauser\u2019s position.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":269448,"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_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},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818153,691818432,691821115,691818076],"class_list":{"0":"post-269438","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-models","9":"tag-clouds","10":"tag-cmip6-model-simulations","11":"tag-co2","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0DuY63wcUcAAks26.jpg?fit=1200%2C695&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-185M","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225716,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=225716","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"position":0},"title":"Vapour buoyancy flaw leads to inaccurate simulations of cloud distributions in climate models, study finds","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The researchers say, \u2018climate models often differ on the precise degree of future warming, largely due to their representation of clouds.\u2019 For decades we\u2019ve been told to believe variations in carbon dioxide are the key to any future warming, but climate model forecasts have been unable to deliver the hoped-for\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\/10\/0704156.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/0704156.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/0704156.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/0704156.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/0704156.png?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252646,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=252646","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"position":1},"title":"Think We Can Model the Climate? Clouds Get in the Way!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"IPCC forecasters overstate warming because they still somehow really don\u2019t understand clouds at all.","rel":"","context":"In \"CO2\"","block_context":{"text":"CO2","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Cumulus_Clouds_Over_Jamaica.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Cumulus_Clouds_Over_Jamaica.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Cumulus_Clouds_Over_Jamaica.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Cumulus_Clouds_Over_Jamaica.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00Cumulus_Clouds_Over_Jamaica.jpg?fit=1200%2C900&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254686,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=254686","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"position":2},"title":"The Mysterious AR6 ECS, Part 2, the Impact of Clouds","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/04\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The yearly net impact of clouds on outgoing and incoming radiation varies over one W\/m2\u00a0from year-to-year, according to CERES satellite data.[1]\u00a0AR6 tells us that cloud feedbacks, to GHG surface warming, are the largest source of uncertainty in their assessment of the warming in the past century as we can see\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AR6 ECS\"","block_context":{"text":"AR6 ECS","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ar6-ecs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00cumulus-cloud-1428590128Abv-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00cumulus-cloud-1428590128Abv-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00cumulus-cloud-1428590128Abv-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00cumulus-cloud-1428590128Abv-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/00cumulus-cloud-1428590128Abv-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222184,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=222184","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"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":231954,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=231954","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"position":4},"title":"Clouds less climate-sensitive than assumed","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/12\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From airborne observations, these researchers find \u2018trade-wind clouds are far less sensitive to global warming than has long been assumed\u2019. Their\u00a0study\u00a0says: \u2018Our observational analyses render models with large positive feedbacks implausible\u2019. Consequently, they believe, extreme rise in Earth\u2019s temperatures is less likely than previously thought.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0Sky-with-clouds..jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0Sky-with-clouds..jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0Sky-with-clouds..jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0Sky-with-clouds..jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0Sky-with-clouds..jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220042,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=220042","url_meta":{"origin":269438,"position":5},"title":"Updated Climate Models Clouded by Scientific Biases, Researchers Find","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Clouds can cool or warm the planet\u2019s surface, a radiative effect that contributes significantly to the global energy budget and can be altered by human-caused pollution.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1054.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1054.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1054.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1054.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269438","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=269438"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269450,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269438\/revisions\/269450"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/269448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=269438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=269438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=269438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}