{"id":329036,"date":"2024-05-14T18:02:53","date_gmt":"2024-05-14T16:02:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329036"},"modified":"2024-05-14T18:02:56","modified_gmt":"2024-05-14T16:02:56","slug":"modeling-the-mysteries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329036","title":{"rendered":"Modeling The Mysteries"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, every time I go to look at the climate models, I come away more confused. And today is no exception. I decided to take a look at the relationship between the change in forcing (downwelling radiation) and the change in temperature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forcing datasets are somewhat hard to come by, but the Computer Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) forcings for the GISS-E2 model are\u00a0here<\/a>. The sum of all the forcings is shown in Figure 1, along with the CEEMD smooth of the data.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 1. Forcings used in the CMIP5 runs by the GISS E2 model.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The big dips in the forcings are the theoretical changes in forcing due to volcanic eruptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, here is the average surface temperature output of six runs of the GISS E2 model using those forcings, available from the marvelous KNMI website\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 2. Average of surface temperature (\u201ctas\u201d) output from six CMIP5 GISS model runs.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Already, although the model does a decent job hindcasting the past global surface temperature, we have problems. The difficulty is, back here in the real world, the volcanoes have not had that large an effect on the surface temperature.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 3. Average surface temperature of six CMIP5 GISS model runs compared to Berkeley Earth surface temperature.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Why the exaggeration of the volcano effects? Me, I say it is because as the eruptions cool the surface, the climate responds by the daily tropical cumulus field forming later in the day, and the tropical thunderstorms also forming later or not at all. This warms the surface, counteracting the effects of the eruptions. However, YMMV \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But none of that is what I started out to look at. I wanted to see if the CMIP5 modeled temperatures slavishly follow the forcings. Thirteen years ago, I showed<\/a> that the temperature output of the CCSM3 climate model could be very closely emulated by a simple one-line formula, viz:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T(n+1) = T(n) + \u03bb \u2206F(n+1) * (1- exp( -1 \/ \u03c4 )) + \u0394T(n) * exp( -1 \/ \u03c4 )<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See the linked post for the description of what the formula means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I used that formula, to see how well I could emulate the temperature output using nothing but the forcing applied to the model. Here\u2019s the result:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 3. \u201cBlack box\u201d emulation of the GISS-E2 model temperatures, calculated from the forcing alone.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

So the situation is unchanged. An R^2 of 0.97 says the emulation is doing a most excellent job. In passing, it\u2019s interesting that the volcanic action in the model averages is a bit larger than in the calculations from the forcing, just as happened with the model average compared to the real world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, to recap the bidding: The GISS-E2 climate model has 440,000+ lines of code. It has over two million gridcells representing the world, and it takes a whole day to do just one model run on a parallel-processing computer with 88 processors.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And after all that, it merely spits out a lagged and resized version of the input forcing.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hmmm \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, in the formula used to emulate the model output, the variable \u201clambda\u201d (\u03bb<\/strong>) is the change in temperature resulting (in modelworld) from a 1 watt per square meter (W\/m2) increase in forcing. This is a measure of the \u201ctransient climate response\u201d (TCR), how the temperature responds in the short term to a change in forcing. It\u2019s usually expressed as the amount of change from a doubling of CO2 (2xCO2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the doubling of CO2 is said by the IPCC to increase forcing by 3.7 W\/m2. This would make the TCR have a value of 0.41 \u00b0C\/Wm2 * 3.7 W\/m2 per 2xCO2 = 1.5\u00b0C \/ 2xCO2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, I wanted to calculate the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from that TCR value. However, when I went to research that \u2026 let me say I was shocked. There\u2019s a good discussion of the issues in an article with the long title \u201cEmergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models<\/a>\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What was shocking? Well, several things. First, according to the article, every different model uses a different value for the increase in forcing from a doubling of CO2. Remember above where I noted that the IPCC says forcing increases by 3.7 W\/m2 from a doubling of CO2 (2xCO2)? Here\u2019s what the models say:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 4. Change in forcing from a doubling of CO2 as used by 31 different climate models.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Zowie! The models are all over the place, with values for 2xCO2 forcing ranging from 2.6 to almost 4 W\/m2. And the range of the uncertainty on the median value (width of the notch in the sides of the box) doesn\u2019t even include the canonical IPCC value of 3.7 W\/m2 \u2026 how these jokers have the nerve to call climate science \u201csettled\u201d is a mystery. Not only do we not have agreement on the values of the ECS and the TCR, but we don\u2019t even agree on how much the forcing changes when CO2 doubles! Who knew? I remember Steve McIntyre asking for an engineering-level derivation of the 3.7 W\/m2 figure for 2xCO2, but I had no idea that the models disagreed so much on this central figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there was another surprise. It turns out that the ECS is not some fixed multiple of the TCR. Instead, the ECS of small values of TCR is a smaller multiple of the TCR than for large values of the TCR. Figure 5 shows that relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 5. Scatterplot, ECS values versus TCR values for 31 different climate models.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This relationship would mean that the GISS E2 model would have an ECS on the order of 2\u00b0C \/ 2xCO2 \u2026 but of course, that\u2019s only if the 2xCO2 forcing is 3.7 W\/m2, when in fact we have values from 2.6 to almost 4 W\/m2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To compound the problem, as you can see, the different models give widely different values for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). They range from 1.8\u00b0C to 5.7\u00b0C for a doubling of CO2, more than a three-to-one variation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the final impossibility. Despite the different models having wildly different equilibrium climate sensitivities and different transient climate responses and different forcing changes from doubling CO2 \u2026 somehow they all do a pretty good job of hindcasting the actual temperature record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if the models were actually \u201cphysics-based\u201d as every modeler claims, this would not be possible<\/strong>. I call this \u201cDr. Kiehl\u2019s Paradox\u201d, since he noted it first, and I discuss this impossible result here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gotta love that settled science \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Look, the ECS<\/strong> is a central, vitally important number in mainstream climate science. The forcing change from doubling CO2<\/strong> is another central, vitally important number in mainstream climate science. They\u2019ve been studying the subject for a half-century, and both numbers still have an enormous uncertainty range<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And worse than that, the uncertainty of the ECS has gotten wider with more study, not narrower \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Figure 6. ECS estimates over time, from 172 different sources.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In any other science, a half-century spent studying such a central number would result in reduced uncertainty \u2026 but in climate science, it\u2019s going the other way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To me, this is evidence that the basic paradigm of climate science is wrong<\/strong>. This basic paradigm is the claim that the temperature change is a linear function of the forcing change. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s true. I think that\u2019s simplistic nonsense. I think that the climate actively responds to changing conditions and that there are a host of emergent climate phenomena<\/a> that oppose any warming from any source, including changes in forcing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyhow, that\u2019s the story of my latest wandering through the models \u2026 I ended up knowing less than when I started.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Here in the US, it\u2019s Mother\u2019s Day, so my gorgeous ex-fiancee<\/a> and I are going for a bike ride and then out for dinner \u2026 what\u2019s not to like?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Best to all, and remember, when you comment please quote the exact words you\u2019re discussing. It makes everything much clearer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Well, every time I go to look at the climate models, I come away more confused. And today is no exception. I decided to take a look at the relationship between the change in forcing (downwelling radiation) and the change in temperature.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":329051,"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":[691818153,691822921,691828627,691828628],"class_list":{"0":"post-329036","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-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-ecs-2","10":"tag-global-surface-temperature","11":"tag-volcano-effects","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/00Bhattachayra_hero_1200px.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1nB2","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":350651,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=350651","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":0},"title":"Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/11\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In his paper,\u00a0\u201cRelative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?\u201d, Demetris Koutsoyiannis explores the greenhouse effect\u2019s primary drivers, positing that water vapor and clouds vastly overshadow carbon dioxide (CO\u2082) in terms of their contribution.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO2)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO2)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-clouds-on-the-sky.jpeg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-clouds-on-the-sky.jpeg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-clouds-on-the-sky.jpeg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-clouds-on-the-sky.jpeg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/0-clouds-on-the-sky.jpeg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351059,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=351059","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":1},"title":"\u00a0New Study: Human Contribution To Enhancement Of Earth\u2019s Greenhouse Effect A Negligible 0.2 Percent","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/11\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c[T]he contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is 4% \u2013 5%. Human CO2 emissions represent 4% of the total, which means that the total human contribution to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect is 0.16% to 0.20% \u2013 a negligible effect.\u201d \u2013 Dr. Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2024)","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO2)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO2)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/00AdobeStock_266865139.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/00AdobeStock_266865139.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/00AdobeStock_266865139.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/00AdobeStock_266865139.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/00AdobeStock_266865139.jpg?fit=1200%2C668&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344580,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=344580","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":2},"title":"Scientists: Climate Forcing Measurement Errors Are \u2018Only\u2019 150 Times Larger Than For CO2 Climate Forcing","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"25\/09\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"When assessing the climate-altering effects of downwelling longwave radiation, the root mean square error associated with calculating this value is 29.7 W\/m\u00b2. For some reason, scientists characterize measurements with an observation error this large as \u201chigh accuracy\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In \"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)\"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropogenic-global-warming-agw"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0AdobeStock_266865139-1-1024x570.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0AdobeStock_266865139-1-1024x570.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0AdobeStock_266865139-1-1024x570.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/0AdobeStock_266865139-1-1024x570.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":414780,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=414780","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":3},"title":"A World Without Air","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/11\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Here\u2019s a thought experiment. Consider the Earth with no atmosphere and with the same surface albedo of 12.5% that it has now. How warm would it be?","rel":"","context":"In \"Atmosphere\"","block_context":{"text":"Atmosphere","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=atmosphere"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQOWAQDFJQ0tMq1HY6sEZ_Th9oC5JDX3wngGqgIKZYHI7oDXREx8uAxo686FH7g5HNilnnZxZN8Zy-MM3ZV6o2u50Ig4igduDgFGyLjRXodvMBLI0-MGI3kIT6D969I-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQOWAQDFJQ0tMq1HY6sEZ_Th9oC5JDX3wngGqgIKZYHI7oDXREx8uAxo686FH7g5HNilnnZxZN8Zy-MM3ZV6o2u50Ig4igduDgFGyLjRXodvMBLI0-MGI3kIT6D969I-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQOWAQDFJQ0tMq1HY6sEZ_Th9oC5JDX3wngGqgIKZYHI7oDXREx8uAxo686FH7g5HNilnnZxZN8Zy-MM3ZV6o2u50Ig4igduDgFGyLjRXodvMBLI0-MGI3kIT6D969I-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQOWAQDFJQ0tMq1HY6sEZ_Th9oC5JDX3wngGqgIKZYHI7oDXREx8uAxo686FH7g5HNilnnZxZN8Zy-MM3ZV6o2u50Ig4igduDgFGyLjRXodvMBLI0-MGI3kIT6D969I-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0AQOWAQDFJQ0tMq1HY6sEZ_Th9oC5JDX3wngGqgIKZYHI7oDXREx8uAxo686FH7g5HNilnnZxZN8Zy-MM3ZV6o2u50Ig4igduDgFGyLjRXodvMBLI0-MGI3kIT6D969I-1.jpeg?fit=1200%2C664&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":380952,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=380952","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":4},"title":"Not All That Sensitive","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The sensitivity of the surface to changes in absorbed radiation is a central, critical question in climate science. The claim is that the change in global average temperature is equal to the change in absorbed radiation times the \u201cequilibrium climate sensitivity\u201d, abbreviated as ECS. The ECS is assumed to be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"absorbed radiation\"","block_context":{"text":"absorbed radiation","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=absorbed-radiation"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-30.-Mai-2025-19_08_36.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-30.-Mai-2025-19_08_36.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-30.-Mai-2025-19_08_36.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-30.-Mai-2025-19_08_36.png?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329789,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329789","url_meta":{"origin":329036,"position":5},"title":"Rainergy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/05\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If aliens in spaceships saw our world, they wouldn\u2019t name it \u201cEarth\u201d. They\u2019d name it \u201cWater\u201d because that\u2019s what makes up more than 70% of the surface. And it\u2019s also what controls the climate.","rel":"","context":"In \"Clouds\"","block_context":{"text":"Clouds","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=clouds"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0X93VENT.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0X93VENT.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0X93VENT.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0X93VENT.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/0X93VENT.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329036","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=329036"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329036\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":329052,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329036\/revisions\/329052"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/329051"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=329036"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=329036"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=329036"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}