{"id":338319,"date":"2024-08-02T17:04:05","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T15:04:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338319"},"modified":"2024-08-02T17:04:08","modified_gmt":"2024-08-02T15:04:08","slug":"unconventional-sign-conventions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=338319","title":{"rendered":"Unconventional Sign Conventions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Beautiful sunset on the hill above clouds<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

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

I do a lot of work with the CERES satellite dataset. An image of their data collection system is above. From their website:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The CERES project has advanced the state-of-the-art in Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) observations through improved accuracy of the CERES instruments and extensive use of coincident higher spatial resolution spectral imager measurements on both low-Earth orbit and geostationary platforms. CERES involves a high level of data fusion. During the CERES period, the team has processed data from 7 CERES instruments, 2 MODIS, 2 VIIRS and 20 geostationary imagers, all integrated to obtain climate accuracy in radiative fluxes from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere. Over 90% of the CERES data product volume involves two or more instruments.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, recently, there have been claims in an analysis by Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) that the IPCC is misusing the CERES satellite data. Now, I hate to write about this analysis for reasons I\u2019ll get into, but as the saying goes, \u201cNeeds must when the Devil drives.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The analysis is Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of<\/a> <\/a>Critical Satellite Data by IPCC<\/a>, and it\u2019s hosted over at Tallbloke\u2019s Talkshop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason I didn\u2019t want to write about it is that I\u2019ve had run-ins with Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller before, and also with Roger Tattersall, AKA \u201cTallbloke\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With N&Z, a while back they published a scientific paper using aliases. I figured it out, which wasn\u2019t all that hard given that the aliases were Den Volokin and Lark Rellez. So I wrote to the editor pointing this out, and the fat was in the fire. Suffice it to say, they weren\u2019t happy with me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also published an analysis claiming that gravity is what is keeping the atmosphere warmer than it would be given the distance of the Earth from the sun. And that, of course, isn\u2019t physically possible \u2026 and I said so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With Roger Tallbloke, I\u2019m banned from commenting on his site, Tallbloke\u2019s Talkshop<\/em>. It started with him banning Joel Shore from his site for saying that N&Z\u2019s gravity analysis violated the conservation of energy. From a post during that time:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Roger\u2019s exact words to Joel were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 you\u2019re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, I have done the very same thing that Joel did. I\u2019ve said around the web that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. So I went to the Talkshop and asked, even implored<\/a>, Roger not to do such a foolish and anti-scientific thing as banning someone for their scientific views. Since I hold the same views and I committed the same thought-crimes, it was more than theoretical to me. Roger has remained obdurate, however, so I am no longer able to post there in good conscience.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Then, in a separate incident, I put up an actual proof<\/a> that N&Z\u2019s claim violated conservation of energy. I\u2019m sure that didn\u2019t endear me to N&Z. In the comments to that post, Rog got angry at me and banned me. I guess I\u2019m double-banned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So me commenting on an N&Z post hosted at Tallbloke\u2019s Talkshop \u2026 well \u2026 let me just say there are forces at play and leave it at that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, after someone pointed the N&Z out to me a week or so ago, I did get curious and started to take a quick look at the paper. I got a few paragraphs in, laughed, and moved on. Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

N&Z\u2019s claim in the paper is that the IPCC is totally misrepresenting the CERES data by inverting it. From the opening of the paper:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We found out that the CERES global anomalies of reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation have been multiplied by -1 in the computer code employed to generate Fig. 7.3. This caused inversion of the long-term trends of these key climate parameters. Dr. Matthew Palmer, one of the authors of Section 7.2.2, admitted in an email message that this trend inversion was done intentionally, but failed to provide a convincing justification for it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

When they said that, I immediately knew what had happened. Let me explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the CERES datasets, generally all fluxes are positive in sign. So for example, in the CERES dataset the average value of TOA solar radiation heading towards the Earth is + 340 W\/m2, and the average value of reflected solar heading away from the Earth is + 99 W\/m2. Both are positive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this is not the only convention in use. The IPCC, for example, considers energy fluxes heading towards the Earth as positive, and fluxes heading away from the Earth as negative. The logic behind this is that inward fluxes warm the Earth so they should be positive, and outbound fluxes cool the Earth so they should be negative. Fair enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the IPCC would say that solar radiation is + 340 W\/m2, and reflected solar radiation is \u2013 99 W\/m2. The outgoing radiation is negative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same is true about the upwelling longwave at the top of the atmosphere. The CERES data gives that as a positive value, + 240 W\/m2 \u2026 but under the IPCC convention it\u2019s a negative value, \u2013 240 W\/m2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s nothing sacred about either of these conventions.<\/strong> Both are perfectly valid ways of doing business. For that matter, it would also be perfectly valid to consider fluxes headed towards the Earth as negative, and those going out away from the Earth as positive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As long as you know which convention is in operation, it\u2019s not a problem.<\/strong> For example, in CERES fashion, since all flows are positive, the net solar remaining after reflection is calculated as solar minus<\/em><\/strong> reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But using the IPCC convention, where reflection is negative, the net solar remaining after reflection is calculated as solar plus<\/em><\/strong> reflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when you understand and follow the convention in use, both give you the correct answer.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So after reading that small bit of their paper, I could already see where the misunderstanding lay. It was just different sign conventions. And since I didn\u2019t want to write about it, I stopped reading the analysis right there, and I went on to other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, today Anthony asked me to take a look at the paper because it seems to be causing a bit of a disturbance in the force. So it was \u201cOnce more into the breach, dear friends\u201d<\/em>, and I read it to the end. And near the end, to my surprise, they discussed their interaction with the authors, viz<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

We received a reply from Dr. Palmer on July 10, 2024, where he acknowledged that the reflected solar and outgoing thermal flux anomalies had intentionally been multiplied by -1. However, his explanation for this data manipulation was simply an expansion of the justification stated in the caption of Fig. 7.3 that invokes flux direction. Specifically, Dr. Palmer wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c\u2026 reflected SW and outgoing LW are both defined as positive in the upward\/outward direction. Therefore, for those timeseries we multiply by -1 so that they are expressed in a way that is consistent with the rest of the chapter. This means, for example, that a decrease in reflected SW means a relative GAIN of energy in the Earth system. Similarly, an increase in outgoing LW means a relative LOSS of energy in the Earth system. Note that in the figure we label these as \u201cglobal solar flux anomaly\u201d and \u201cglobal thermal flux anomaly\u201d rather than \u201creflected SW flux\u201d and \u201coutgoing LW flux\u201d<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Man, did I laugh when I read that. It said the exact same thing I\u2019d already figured out was the problem. However, N&Z just blew him off saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

As discussed above, this explanation makes no physical sense, because anomalies are always defined with respect to a chosen reference value and, therefore, have nothing to do with flux direction. Also, expressing a timeseries in terms of anomalies is not supposed to change the temporal trend of the original data.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Yeah \u2026 no. That\u2019s not how it works. Sign conventions are just that, a convention. All the authors did, and rightly so, was to make their analysis consistent with IPCC conventions and more importantly, consistent with the model results they were comparing it to<\/strong>, by multiplying the outgoing flows of shortwave and longwave by -1. Totally legitimate<\/strong>, and in their case, totally necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyhow, that\u2019s N&Z, wrong again. However, my guess is that they won\u2019t admit it, they\u2019ll just keep on keeping on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that\u2019s all I\u2019m going to say on the N&Z claim. Here on our forested hillside with a tiny view of the Pacific Ocean six miles (ten km) distant to the west, the temperature has dropped and the fog is back. Saw a red fox scurrying by today looking for his lunch \u2026 life is good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My best to all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

w.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I gotta say it: <\/strong>When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NB:<\/strong> Today at the time when this publishes, I\u2019ll be ripping the innards out of a toilet and taking them to town to find a replacement \u2026 so my replies will be delayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The CERES project has advanced the state-of-the-art in Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) observations through improved accuracy of the CERES instruments and extensive use of coincident higher spatial resolution spectral imager measurements on both low-Earth orbit and geostationary platforms. CERES involves a high level of data fusion. During the CERES period, the team has processed data from 7 CERES instruments, 2 MODIS, 2 VIIRS and 20 geostationary imagers, all integrated to obtain climate accuracy in radiative fluxes from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere. Over 90% of the CERES data product volume involves two or more instruments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":338322,"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":[691821163,691829954,691821642,691829955,691829956],"class_list":{"0":"post-338319","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-ceres","9":"tag-earth-radiation-budget-erb","10":"tag-ipcc-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change","11":"tag-nikolov-and-zeller-nz","12":"tag-roger-tattersall","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0clouds.jpg?fit=2160%2C800&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1q0L","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":218014,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=218014","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":0},"title":"The CERES Data","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"08\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Clouds and the Earth\u2019s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project provides satellite-based observations of ERB and clouds.","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-465.png?fit=1092%2C1012&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-465.png?fit=1092%2C1012&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-465.png?fit=1092%2C1012&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-465.png?fit=1092%2C1012&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-465.png?fit=1092%2C1012&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":391371,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=391371","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":1},"title":"CERES Satellite Data Suggests Low Climate Sensitivity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/07\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"From the\u00a0Friends of Science Society\u00a0Newsletter, where they give our own Willis Eschenbach props and suggestions for his important recent work \u2013 Anthony","rel":"","context":"In \"atmospheric circulation\"","block_context":{"text":"atmospheric circulation","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=atmospheric-circulation"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMYbziJPlrNfPw2fMRJSk9XYLefd1KxspQL-TrOX9jYRkF0-tyDdM5MrlJOBPPBzpD6ebOxbZbmOgsTAC3-o7v5RDmM91gO9hdtwDLqC0fPadckbZp46VIkQNXeefytpqp_gCHmsU4-s4bPOcrM-d9E8xbskg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMYbziJPlrNfPw2fMRJSk9XYLefd1KxspQL-TrOX9jYRkF0-tyDdM5MrlJOBPPBzpD6ebOxbZbmOgsTAC3-o7v5RDmM91gO9hdtwDLqC0fPadckbZp46VIkQNXeefytpqp_gCHmsU4-s4bPOcrM-d9E8xbskg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMYbziJPlrNfPw2fMRJSk9XYLefd1KxspQL-TrOX9jYRkF0-tyDdM5MrlJOBPPBzpD6ebOxbZbmOgsTAC3-o7v5RDmM91gO9hdtwDLqC0fPadckbZp46VIkQNXeefytpqp_gCHmsU4-s4bPOcrM-d9E8xbskg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMYbziJPlrNfPw2fMRJSk9XYLefd1KxspQL-TrOX9jYRkF0-tyDdM5MrlJOBPPBzpD6ebOxbZbmOgsTAC3-o7v5RDmM91gO9hdtwDLqC0fPadckbZp46VIkQNXeefytpqp_gCHmsU4-s4bPOcrM-d9E8xbskg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/AQMYbziJPlrNfPw2fMRJSk9XYLefd1KxspQL-TrOX9jYRkF0-tyDdM5MrlJOBPPBzpD6ebOxbZbmOgsTAC3-o7v5RDmM91gO9hdtwDLqC0fPadckbZp46VIkQNXeefytpqp_gCHmsU4-s4bPOcrM-d9E8xbskg.jpeg?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358490,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=358490","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":2},"title":"New Study: The Warming Trend Since 2013 Explained by Increases in Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Instead, a\u00a0new study\u00a0published in the journal\u00a0Science\u00a0contends that decreasing cloud albedo and the consequent increase in ASR or absorbed solar radiation (+0.97 to 1.10 W\/m\u00b2\/decade according to ERA5 and CERES, respectively), explains the warming over the last decade. (Less cloud cover means more solar radiation reaches the Earth\u2019s surface, warming it.)","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0acp-20-9895-2020-f06-web.png?fit=1200%2C536&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0acp-20-9895-2020-f06-web.png?fit=1200%2C536&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0acp-20-9895-2020-f06-web.png?fit=1200%2C536&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0acp-20-9895-2020-f06-web.png?fit=1200%2C536&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0acp-20-9895-2020-f06-web.png?fit=1200%2C536&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340498,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340498","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":3},"title":"\u00a0Scientists: 100% Of 2000-2023 Warming Explained By Solar Forcing\u2026Human Climate Forcing \u2018Does Not Exist In Reality\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A new, observation-based study makes extensive use of satellite data (CERES) to quantify the driving mechanism behind the global surface air temperature (GSAT) warming throughout the first 24 years of the 21st century.","rel":"","context":"In \"EEI [Earth\u2019s Energy Imbalance]\"","block_context":{"text":"EEI [Earth\u2019s Energy Imbalance]","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=eei-earths-energy-imbalance"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01868412.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01868412.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01868412.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01868412.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01868412.jpg?fit=1200%2C750&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337742,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=337742","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":4},"title":"Nikolov & Zeller: Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by\u00a0IPCC","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) concluded \u201cIt is very likely that well-mixed GHGs [greenhouse gases] were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979\u201d (IPCC, 2021; p.5).","rel":"","context":"In \"CERES data\"","block_context":{"text":"CERES data","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ceres-data"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0jpss_satellite-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C776&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0jpss_satellite-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C776&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0jpss_satellite-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C776&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0jpss_satellite-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C776&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0jpss_satellite-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C776&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284511,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=284511","url_meta":{"origin":338319,"position":5},"title":"As Above, So Below","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The term\u00a0temperature anomaly\u00a0means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value. From Watts Up With That? Guest Post by Willis\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"average temperatures\"","block_context":{"text":"average temperatures","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=average-temperatures"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/02385_temp-graph-012721.jpg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/02385_temp-graph-012721.jpg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/02385_temp-graph-012721.jpg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/02385_temp-graph-012721.jpg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/02385_temp-graph-012721.jpg?fit=1200%2C671&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338319","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=338319"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338319\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338323,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338319\/revisions\/338323"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/338322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=338319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=338319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=338319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}