{"id":418291,"date":"2025-12-23T08:36:20","date_gmt":"2025-12-23T07:36:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418291"},"modified":"2025-12-23T08:36:22","modified_gmt":"2025-12-23T07:36:22","slug":"scientific-report-or-legal-brief-the-hunga-tonga-assessment-and-the-anatomy-of-narrative-closure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418291","title":{"rendered":"Scientific Report or Legal Brief? The Hunga Tonga Assessment and the Anatomy of Narrative Closure"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

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

By Charles Rotter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Hunga Tonga\u2013Hunga Ha\u02bbapai volcano erupted in January 2022, it immediately posed a problem\u2014not merely scientific, but institutional. The eruption was the most explosive in the satellite era, injected an unprecedented quantity of water vapor into the stratosphere, and did so with a chemical signature unlike the canonical climate-cooling eruptions of the late twentieth century. It was followed, inconveniently, by a pronounced surge in global surface temperatures. The timing alone guaranteed scrutiny. What mattered was how that scrutiny would be framed.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Cover
https:\/\/juser.fz-juelich.de\/record\/1049154\/files\/Hunga_APARC_Report_full.pdf<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The resulting assessment report<\/a> is vast, meticulous, and technically competent. It documents the eruption and its atmospheric aftermath in extraordinary detail, particularly in its observational chapters. Satellite measurements are cross-validated, transport pathways mapped, and instrumental uncertainties repeatedly acknowledged. The early sections read as careful empirical science, and much of the observational synthesis is genuinely valuable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the report is not merely descriptive. From its opening highlights onward, it signals a specific destination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe record-high global surface temperatures in 2023\/2024 were not due to the Hunga eruption.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That sentence appears in the Highlights section, not buried in the discussion, and not framed as provisional. It is one of the few categorical statements in the entire summary. Its placement matters. In a scientific inquiry, conclusions typically emerge from analysis. In this document, the conclusion precedes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report then devotes hundreds of pages to ensuring that this statement remains unthreatened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, the authors do not deny that Hunga was extraordinary. On the contrary, they emphasize repeatedly that the eruption was unique in the observational record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe stratospheric hydration caused by the eruption was unprecedented in magnitude, altitude, and duration in the satellite record.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That admission alone makes the subsequent dismissal of surface relevance nontrivial. Water vapor is not an exotic or speculative climate agent; it is the dominant greenhouse gas. An unprecedented perturbation at climatically sensitive altitudes is, at minimum, a legitimate explanatory candidate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report quantifies that perturbation carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cHunga injected an exceptional amount of water into the stratosphere, causing a ~10% (~150 Tg) increase in the global stratospheric water vapour burden.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is not a rounding error. Yet from this point forward, the analytical burden shifts. The question ceases to be what such an injection might plausibly do and becomes how its effects can be shown to dissipate, fragment, or sink below detectability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Radiative forcing estimates are produced. The report arrives at a net top-of-atmosphere forcing of roughly \u22120.4 W\/m\u00b2 over the first two years, dominated by short-lived aerosol effects and partially offset by water vapor. From this, a small surface temperature response is inferred, followed immediately by a critical concession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAs a consequence of the negative TOA RF, the Hunga eruption is estimated to have decreased global surface air temperature by about 0.05 K during 2022\u20132023; due to larger interannual variability, this temperature change cannot be observed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This sentence does more work than the report seems to recognize. An effect that cannot be observed, cannot be separated from noise, and cannot be detected empirically is not a finding; it is a boundary. It defines what must be ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report repeatedly emphasizes this indistinguishability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSurface climate impacts of the eruption\u2026 are relatively small and not distinguishable from the background internal variability of the Earth system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Internal variability thus becomes a one-way gate. It is sufficient to dismiss Hunga\u2019s influence, but it is not subjected to the same analytical pressure as an explanatory mechanism in its own right. Variability explains by default; Hunga must explain beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This asymmetry is reinforced through modeling. The report leans heavily on global chemistry\u2013climate models, repeatedly stressing their importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cModels are critical tools to elucidate the detailed chemical, radiative, and dynamical impacts on the Earth system from volcanic events, especially in the context of interannual variability.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Yet these same models are acknowledged to diverge in key respects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cModels differ in their simulations of Hunga aerosol microphysical properties, indicating that simulating aerosol microphysics remains a challenge for model development.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Differences in aerosol growth rates, sedimentation, cross-equatorial transport, and decay times are treated as technical hurdles rather than epistemic warnings. Model spread does not weaken conclusions; it merely motivates more modeling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When transport-driven ozone anomalies are discussed, the report concedes limits to causal attribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe extent to which transport anomalies were causally connected to the eruption is not clear.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This admission is quietly devastating. It acknowledges that large observed anomalies coincided with Hunga but cannot be cleanly attributed to it. Rather than opening the possibility that attribution itself may be structurally weak, the report uses this ambiguity to cordon off surface relevance altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same pattern recurs in the discussion of circulation effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn the NH, observed stratospheric meteorological conditions following the Hunga eruption were within the range of interannual variability, and model simulations show no consistent circulation response.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

No consistent response becomes synonymous with no meaningful effect. The possibility that the climate system simply lacks the resolution to isolate short-term forcings of this type is never seriously entertained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the entire document appears not in the science chapters but in the forward-looking institutional context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cModels are critical tools to elucidate the detailed chemical, radiative, and dynamical impacts on the Earth system from volcanic events, especially in the context of interannual variability.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is less a methodological statement than a declaration of dependence. Where observations fail to resolve attribution cleanly, models are invoked to close the question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report also makes clear that its remit extends beyond pure inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThis report has aligned closely with\u2026 upcoming international assessments.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That alignment explains much. An open-ended conclusion\u2014that a large, natural, poorly constrained event may have contributed meaningfully to recent warming\u2014would complicate attribution frameworks that depend on trend continuity. Ambiguity was not an acceptable endpoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, the hypothesis is exhausted. Not falsified, but procedurally neutralized. Every plausible pathway is examined, attenuated, and shown to fall below detectability thresholds. Uncertainty is acknowledged, but always in ways that weaken the Hunga hypothesis more than its alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The length of the report is not incidental. A short paper declaring Hunga irrelevant would have invited skepticism. Only a document of this scale\u2014dense with data, models, intercomparisons, and caveats\u2014could plausibly declare the case closed without appearing dismissive. The volume itself functions rhetorically, conveying finality through exhaustion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of this requires accusing the authors of misconduct. The report is careful, internally consistent, and often admirably cautious. But caution is not evenly distributed. Skepticism is applied asymmetrically. One explanation is forced to clear a high evidentiary bar; others pass unchallenged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In that sense, the document reads less like an open scientific inquiry and more like a legal brief. Evidence is marshaled, counterarguments anticipated, uncertainties catalogued, and a verdict delivered early, then defended at length. The goal is not discovery, but closure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hunga Tonga eruption presented an opportunity to examine the limits of short-term climate attribution and to confront how much natural variability remains unresolved. Instead, it became a case study in how institutions respond when nature threatens to intrude on a preferred narrative. The report succeeds on its own terms. Whether those terms serve science\u2014or merely its administrative needs\u2014is the question it never seriously asks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

When the Hunga Tonga\u2013Hunga Ha\u02bbapai volcano erupted in January 2022, it immediately posed a problem\u2014not merely scientific, but institutional. The eruption was the most explosive in the satellite era, injected an unprecedented quantity of water vapor into the stratosphere, and did so with a chemical signature unlike the canonical climate-cooling eruptions of the late twentieth century. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":313419,"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":true,"token":"eyJpbWciOiJodHRwczpcL1wvY2xpbWF0ZS1zY2llbmNlLnByZXNzXC93cC1jb250ZW50XC91cGxvYWRzXC8yMDI0XC8wM1wvMDEyMTIyMl9jZ18tdG9uZ2EtaHVuZ2Etdm9sY2Fub19mZWF0LTEwMjR4NTc3LmpwZyIsInR4dCI6IlNjaWVudGlmaWMgUmVwb3J0IG9yIExlZ2FsIEJyaWVmPyBUaGUgSHVuZ2EgVG9uZ2EgQXNzZXNzbWVudCBhbmQgdGhlIEFuYXRvbXkgb2YgTmFycmF0aXZlIENsb3N1cmUiLCJ0ZW1wbGF0ZSI6ImhpZ2h3YXkiLCJmb250IjoiIiwiYmxvZ19pZCI6MTU1ODEyNDQ5fQ.69pwl4LtbIE2NbmZ2qqXhBNdiWd4u1nCNGA_ablcSAYMQ"},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691823113,691835673,691822686,691840279,691833987],"class_list":{"0":"post-418291","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-global-surface-temperatures","9":"tag-hunga-tonga-hunga-haapai-volcano","10":"tag-hypothesis","11":"tag-january-2022","12":"tag-modeling","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1440%2C811&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1KOD","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":269451,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269451","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":0},"title":"The Tonga Underwater Volcano Eruption May Have Had a Larger Warming Effect Than Reported","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"25\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Initial scientific estimates were 50-million metric tons of water injected into the stratosphere by Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha\u2019apai submarine volcano.","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0hunga-tonga-ha-apai-volcano-eruption-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0hunga-tonga-ha-apai-volcano-eruption-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0hunga-tonga-ha-apai-volcano-eruption-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0hunga-tonga-ha-apai-volcano-eruption-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0hunga-tonga-ha-apai-volcano-eruption-1.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300184,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=300184","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":1},"title":"Hunga Tonga-Hunga eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha\u2019apai volcano on January 15, 2022, produced the largest underwater explosion ever recorded by modern scientific instruments, blasting an enormous amount of water and volcanic gases higher than any other eruption in the satellite era.","rel":"","context":"In \"Earth\u2019s stratosphere\"","block_context":{"text":"Earth\u2019s stratosphere","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=earths-stratosphere"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284307,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=284307","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":2},"title":"2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcanic eruption injected 165 million tons of water vapor & acidic gases into stratosphere & affected the ozone layer","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha\u2019apai volcano\u00a0erupted\u00a0on Jan. 15, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth\u2019s stratosphere \u2013 enough to fill\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"acidic gases\"","block_context":{"text":"acidic gases","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=acidic-gases"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365515,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=365515","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":3},"title":"EXCLUSIVE: Sensational Findings Point to Hunga Tonga Eruption as Prime Suspect Behind Recent Temperature Spike","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In January 2022, a massive underwater volcano called Hunga Tonga suddenly erupted and shot so much water into the upper atmosphere that levels in the stratosphere rose suddenly by at least 10%. It was a genuine one in 100, even 200-year event and was reasonably expected to produce temporary weather\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-07-185254.png?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-07-185254.png?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-07-185254.png?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-07-185254.png?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Screenshot-2025-02-07-185254.png?fit=1200%2C565&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269225,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=269225","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":4},"title":"Ryan Maue on Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha\u2019apai Submarine Volcano.","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"24\/07\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"It\u2019s straightforward how to run a radiative transfer model to determine the impacts of adding 150M metric tons of water to the stratosphere. But, detailed climate model simulations are needed to disentangle the atmospheric circulation changes that lead to non-linear feedbacks. The climate is \u201cabnormal\u201d right now, aside from the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":313414,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=313414","url_meta":{"origin":418291,"position":5},"title":"Hunga Tonga Volcano is \u201cMost Likely\u201d Cause of Recent Warm Temperatures","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/03\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The climate events of 2022-24 have been \u201ctruly extraordinary\u201d, notes Dr. Javier Vin\u00f3s writing in Dr. Judith Curry\u2019s\u00a0online blog. The rare convergence of a number of events \u201cthat may not be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of years\u201d represents a \u201cunique learning opportunity\u201d for climatologists.","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0121222_cg_-tonga-hunga-volcano_feat.jpg?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418291","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=418291"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418291\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":418297,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/418291\/revisions\/418297"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/313419"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=418291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=418291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=418291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}