{"id":105,"date":"2005-01-18T11:08:29","date_gmt":"2005-01-18T15:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=105"},"modified":"2007-08-01T17:16:18","modified_gmt":"2007-08-01T22:16:18","slug":"global-dimming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2005\/01\/global-dimming\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Dimming? Assombrissement global?<\/lang_fr>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

It just so happens that most of the posts on this site have tried to counteract arguments from those who would sow fake “uncertainty” in the climate debate. But lest our readers feel that we are unjustifiably certain about our knowledge, let us look at a recent example of the opposite tendency: too much certainty.<\/p>\n

A recent BBC Horizon documentary (transcript<\/a>) raised the issue of ‘global dimming’ and argued that this ‘killer’ phenomena’s newly-recognised existence would lead to huge re-assessments of future global warming. As part of the hyperbole, the process of global dimming was linked very clearly to the famines in Ethiopia in the 1980s and the implication was left that worse was to come. Media reports with headlines like “Fossil Fuel Curbs May Speed Global Warming”<\/a> swiftly followed. So what’s the real story?
\npar Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Pierre Allemand)<\/small>
\nIl est un fait que la plupart des interventions sur ce site ont essay\u00e9 de contrer les arguments de ceux qui voudraient semer une \u201cincertitude\u201d trompeuse dans le d\u00e9bat sur le climat. Mais, de peur que nos lecteurs pensent que nous sommes abusivement certains de nos connaissances, examinons un exemple r\u00e9cent de la tendance inverse : trop de certitude. <\/p>\n

Un r\u00e9cent documentaire de la s\u00e9rie “Horizon” de la BBC (transcription<\/a>) a soulev\u00e9 la question d\u2019un “assombrissement global” et a indiqu\u00e9 que l\u2019existence r\u00e9cemment reconnue d\u2019un tel ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne \u00ab tueur \u00bb pourrait amener \u00e0 reconsid\u00e9rer tr\u00e8s fortement l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se d\u2019un futur r\u00e9chauffement global. Cet audacieux raisonnement faisait un lien tr\u00e8s clair entre l\u2019assombrissement global et les famines en Ethiopie durant les ann\u00e9es 1980, le plus grave restant encore \u00e0 venir. Des d\u00e9p\u00eaches de presse avec des titres du genre \u00ab Le coup de frein sur les \u00e9nergies fossiles pourrait acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer le r\u00e9chauffement global<\/a> \u00bb suivaient dans la foul\u00e9e. Mais, qu\u2019en est-il exactement ?
\n(suite…)<\/a>
\n<\/lang_fr>
\n<\/p>\n

Global dimming is indicated by measurements over land areas in many regions in the world and may therefore be a real phenomena. Though there are serious issues with the quality of some of the data (birds drinking out of uncovered evaporation pans, drift and inhomogeneities in the solar radiation measuring instruments), in the most global assessment, Beate Liepert<\/a> estimated that there was globally a reduction of about 4% in solar radiation reaching the ground between 1961 and 1990. While more recent indications are that the trend may have reversed in the last decade, it could still be significant. Assuming for the sake of argument that these data are valid, what could have caused this? A change of that magnitude in the incoming solar radiation itself is not possible since satellite observations would have seen it. Thus, it must be something that is happening in the atmosphere to intercept solar radiation. There are only a few possibilities: clouds, water vapour or aerosols<\/a>.<\/p>\n

First of all it is important to note that even pure greenhouse gas forcing will lead to a slight decrease in surface solar radiation (due to the concurrent increased humidity) and potential cloud feedbacks. Cloud cover and thickness are both like to vary as a function of climate change. <\/p>\n

Contrails (those wispy trails left behind high flying jets) have increased over the period and may be important. But estimates of their global effect, even making very generous assumptions about their spread are small (Minnis et al, 2004)<\/a>. Aerosols are also known to have increased over this time, and so they are a natural candidate. However, simulations using the relatively straightforward ‘direct effect’ of aerosols (the increase in albedo of the planet due to the particle brightness) do not match the inferred changes. The final candidates are numerous interactions of aerosols with clouds, the so-called ‘indirect effects’.<\/p>\n

There are an ever increasing number of these ‘indirect effects’, but the two most discussed are the aerosol\/cloud opacity interaction (more aerosols provide more sites for water to condense in clouds, thus cloud droplets are smaller and clouds become more opaque), and the cloud lifetime effect (smaller droplets make it more difficult to make drops big enough to rain, and so clouds live longer). Estimates of the importance of such effects vary widely, and while they are thought to be significant, the uncertainty associated with them is very large. These effects are nevertheless a necessary part of the suite of human-related forcings that are being assessed in order to understand the climate of the 20th Century.<\/p>\n

It should however be stressed that there are as yet no completely convincing explanations that quantitatively match the (admittedly uncertain) observations of this phenomena (Liepert and Lohmann, 2004)<\/a>. However, the Horizon documentary nevertheless confidently asserts that: <\/p>\n

\nGlobal dimming is a killer. It may have been behind the worst climatic disaster of recent times, responsible for famine and death on a biblical scale. And Global Dimming is poised to strike again.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The reference is to the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, partly caused by the failure of the Sahel monsoon (but clearly exacerbated by the poor governance of the Menghistu regime then in power). The link is based on a single modelling sensitivity study (Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002)<\/a> which looked at only the changes in the indirect effect from the pre-industrial (ca. 1850) to the present day. In this study, there was a shift southward of the rainfall belts in a similar way to that observed over the whole century (i.e. not necessarily just the 1980s). While this is indeed very interesting and does suggest that aerosol indirect effects can have important climatic consequences, it is merely the first step to attributing any particular climatic effect (failure of Sahel monsoon) to a particular cause (aerosol indirect effects). The obvious open questions relate to the importance of other forcings, in particular, greenhouse gases (which were not changed in this experiment), and the robustness of any transient response (i.e. does a simulated drought occur in the Sahel in the 1980s more often than at any other time). Absent this further study (which we expect is ongoing as part of the assessments related to the IPCC 4th Assessment report), it is horribly premature to declare ‘global dimming’ the cause<\/em> of this event. Note that while this study looked at the aerosol effects, it makes no claim to actually match the ‘global dimming’ results. Additionally, other model experiments (Giannini et al, 2003) <\/a> point to warmer<\/em> Indian Ocean temperatures to explain the 1980s droughts.<\/p>\n

Aerosols are however much more clearly responsible for serious respiratory problems in big cities (London prior to 1950s, Beijing today), and their health impacts are well known. This was one of the big pushes behind initiatives like the Clean Air acts in many countries which reduced aerosol emissions from power stations. While in the developed world (US, Europe, the ex-USSR) emissions have been falling, the global burden is increasing because of development in India and China. Since, on average, aerosols have a cooling effect (although some absorbing aerosols like black carbon (soot) are actually adding to global warming), reducing current aerosol levels (particularly sulphates) is equivalent to an extra warming effect. <\/p>\n

An important point to note is that while cooling from aerosols and warming from greenhouse gases may have a slight cancelling effect in the global mean, this is not true regionally. Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a “Faustian bargain<\/a>” because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated GHG in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.<\/p>\n

Does this all have either an implication for the global climate sensitivity (how much warming would result from a doubling of CO2<\/sub>) or the scenarios used by IPCC to project climate changes out to 2100? This is where I have to disagree most strongly with the commentary in the program. First, if we were trying to estimate climate sensitivity purely from the response over the 20th century, we would need to know a number of things quite exactly: chiefly the magnitude of all the relevant forcings. However, the uncertainties in the different aerosol effects in particular, preclude an accurate determination from the instrumental period alone. While it is true that, holding everything else equal, an increase in how much cooling was associated with aerosols would lead to an increase in the estimate of climate sensitivity, the error bars are too large for this to be much of a constraint. The estimate of 3+\/-1 deg C (for doubled CO2<\/sub>) based on paleo-data and model studies is therefore still valid, even after this program. <\/p>\n

Secondly, would a re-evaluation of the aerosol effect imply that projections to 2100 must be worse than previously suggested? If the climate sensitivity lies within the bounds considered in IPCC TAR (which I would argue is still the case), the answer is no. The most extreme scenario postulated in TAR (A1F1)<\/a> already has a big reduction in sulphate aerosol forcing, and so the temperature changes by 2100 are almost purely a function of the GHG forcing. They are therefore unaffected by a re-evaluation of the aerosol indirect effect. <\/p>\n

The suggested ‘doubling’ of the rate of warming in the future compared to even the most extreme scenario developed by IPCC is thus highly exaggerated. Supposed consequences such as the drying up of the Amazon Basin, melting of Greenland, and a North African climate regime coming to the UK, are simply extrapolations built upon these exaggerations. Whether these conclusions are actually a fair summary of what the scientists quoted in the program wanted to say is unknown. However, while these extreme notions might make good television, they do a dis-service to the science.
\n
\nL\u2019assombrissement global est observ\u00e9 par des mesures au-dessus des terres dans de nombreuses r\u00e9gions du monde, et il pourrait peut-\u00eatre s\u2019agir d\u2019un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne r\u00e9el. Quoique qu\u2019il existe des doutes s\u00e9rieux sur la validit\u00e9 de certains chiffres (bacs de mesure d\u2019\u00e9vaporation non couverts, et que des oiseaux boivent, d\u00e9rive et non homog\u00e9n\u00e9it\u00e9 dans les instruments de mesure du rayonnement solaire), dans ses assersions les plus globales, Beate Liepert<\/a> estimait \u00e0 environ 4 % la r\u00e9duction globale du rayonnement solaire atteignant le sol entre 1961 et 1990. Bien que des indications plus r\u00e9centes montrent que la tendance pourrait s\u2019\u00eatre invers\u00e9e au cours de la derni\u00e8re d\u00e9cennie, le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne pourrait rester significatif. En admettant pour les besoins du raisonnement que ces chiffres soient valables, quelles pourraient en \u00eatre les causes ? Une modification de cette importance dans le rayonnement solaire incident lui-m\u00eame n\u2019est pas possible, car les satellites l\u2019aurait rep\u00e9r\u00e9. Donc, il doit s\u2019agir de quelque chose dans l\u2019atmosph\u00e8re qui intercepte ce rayonnement. Il n\u2019y a que quelques possibilit\u00e9s : les nuages, la vapeur d\u2019eau ou les a\u00e9rosols<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tout d\u2019abord, il est important de noter que m\u00eame un for\u00e7age purement d\u00fb aux gaz \u00e0 effet de serre conduira \u00e0 une l\u00e9g\u00e8re diminution du rayonnement \u00e0 la surface du sol (\u00e0 cause de l\u2019effet concurrent de l\u2019accroissement de l\u2019humidit\u00e9) et \u00e0 la formation potentielle de nuages. La pr\u00e9sence et l\u2019\u00e9paisseur de la couche nuageuse sont toutes les deux susceptibles de varier avec le climat.
\nLes \u201ccontrails\u201d (ces tra\u00een\u00e9es en panache que laissent les jets \u00e0 haute altitude) ont augment\u00e9 durant cette p\u00e9riode, et ceci pourrait \u00eatre important. Mais, les estimations de leur effet global restent faibles, m\u00eame en faisant des hypoth\u00e8ses tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9reuses quant \u00e0 leur propagation (Minnis et al, 2004<\/a>). Il est \u00e9galement connu que les a\u00e9rosols ont augment\u00e9 durant cette p\u00e9riode, ce qui en fait des candidats naturels. N\u00e9anmoins, les simulations utilisant en premi\u00e8re approximation l\u2019 \u201ceffet direct\u201d des a\u00e9rosols (l\u2019accroissement de l\u2019alb\u00e9do de la plan\u00e8te d\u00fb \u00e0 la brillance des particules), ne cadre pas avec les changements observ\u00e9s. Les candidats restants sont finalement les interactions nombreuses entre les a\u00e9rosols et les nuages, qu\u2019on appelle les \u201ceffets indirects\u201d.
\nLe nombre de ces \u201ceffets indirects\u201d augmente sans cesse, mais les deux les plus cit\u00e9s sont l\u2019interaction a\u00e9rosols \/ opacit\u00e9 nuageuse (l\u2019accroissement des a\u00e9rosols apporte un plus grand nombre de sites de condensation de l\u2019eau en nuages, et donc les gouttelettes nuageuses sont plus petites, et les nuages deviennent plus opaques), et la dur\u00e9e de vie des nuages (des gouttelettes plus petites grossissent plus difficilement pour se transformer en pluie, et donc les nuages durent plus longtemps). Les estimations de l\u2019importance de tels effets varient largement, et, bien qu\u2019on les consid\u00e8re comme significatifs, l\u2019incertitude qui leur est associ\u00e9e reste tr\u00e8s large. Ces effets constituent n\u00e9anmoins une partie de la s\u00e9rie des for\u00e7age d\u2019origine humaine qu\u2019il faut estimer afin de comprendre le climat du 20\u00e8me si\u00e8cle.<\/p>\n

On doit tout de m\u00eame insister sur le fait qu\u2019il n\u2019y a pas encore d\u2019explication convaincante qui concorde quantitativement avec les observations (admises pour incertaines) de ces ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes (Liepert and Lohmann, 2004<\/a>). Cependant, le documentaire Horizon affirme avec confiance que : <\/p>\n

L\u2019assombrissement global est un \u201ctueur\u201d. Il peut avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 derri\u00e8re les pires d\u00e9sastres climatiques de notre temps, responsable de famine et de d\u00e9c\u00e8s \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle biblique. Et l\u2019assombrissement global est en mesure de frapper de nouveau. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence se rapporte \u00e0 la famine des ann\u00e9es 1980 en Ethiopie, partiellement caus\u00e9e par l\u2019absence de mousson (mais, clairement exacerb\u00e9e par la pauvret\u00e9 de la r\u00e9action gouvernementale du r\u00e9gime de Menghistu, alors au pouvoir).
\nLe lien est fond\u00e9 sur une \u00e9tude de sensibilit\u00e9 \u00e0 mod\u00e8le unique (Rotstayn and Lohmann, 2002<\/a>) qui s\u2019est int\u00e9ress\u00e9 uniquement aux modifications dans les effets indirects depuis l\u2019\u00e9poque pr\u00e9-industrielle (1850) jusqu\u2019\u00e0 nos jours. Dans cette \u00e9tude, (simulation) on observe un d\u00e9placement vers le Sud de la ceinture des pluies similaire \u00e0 celle observ\u00e9e durant tout le si\u00e8cle (et non n\u00e9cessairement juste pendant les ann\u00e9es 1980). Bien que cela soit de fait tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant, et sugg\u00e8re que les effets indirects des a\u00e9rosols peuvent avoir des cons\u00e9quences climatiques importantes, ce n\u2019est qu\u2019un tout premier pas que d\u2019attribuer un certain effet climatique (absence de mousson au Sahel) \u00e0 une cause particuli\u00e8re (effets indirects des a\u00e9rosols). Les questions relatives \u00e0 l\u2019importance des autres for\u00e7ages restent \u00e9videmment ouvertes, en particulier les gaz \u00e0 effet de serre (qui n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 chang\u00e9s dans cette exp\u00e9rience), et la solidit\u00e9 d\u2019une quelconque r\u00e9ponse temporaire (\u00e0 savoir, est-ce qu\u2019une s\u00e9cheresse (issue de la simulation) s\u2019est produite au Sahel dans les ann\u00e9es 80 plus souvent qu\u2019\u00e0 aucune autre p\u00e9riode). En l\u2019absence d\u2019une \u00e9tude compl\u00e9mentaire, (que nous esp\u00e9rons en cours, conform\u00e9ment aux assertions relatives au 4\u00e8me Rapport d\u2019Evaluation du GIEC) il est horriblement pr\u00e9matur\u00e9 de d\u00e9clarer que \u201cl\u2019assombrissement global\u201d est la cause de cet \u00e9v\u00e8nement. Notons qu\u2019alors que cette \u00e9tude portait sur les effets des a\u00e9rosols, elle ne revendique aucune conformit\u00e9 avec les r\u00e9sultats de \u201cl\u2019assombrissement global\u201d. Accessoirement, d\u2019autres mod\u00e8les exp\u00e9rimentaux (Giannini et al, 2003<\/a>) expliquent la s\u00e9cheresse des ann\u00e9es 80 par l\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9vation de la temp\u00e9rature de l\u2019Oc\u00e9an Indien.<\/p>\n

Les a\u00e9rosols sont n\u00e9anmoins beaucoup plus clairement responsables de probl\u00e8mes respiratoires s\u00e9rieux dans les grandes villes (Londres avant les ann\u00e9es 1950, Beijing aujourd\u2019hui), et leurs impacts sur la sant\u00e9 sont bien connus. Cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 l\u2019un des principaux motifs qui ont pouss\u00e9 \u00e0 prendre les initiatives telles que les lois sur la puret\u00e9 de l\u2019air (Clean Air Acts) dans de nombreux pays qui ont r\u00e9duit les \u00e9missions d\u2019a\u00e9rosols des centrales thermiques. Alors que dans le monde d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 (USA, Europe, ex-URSS) les \u00e9missions ont diminu\u00e9, la contrainte du taux global est en augmentation en raison du d\u00e9veloppement en Inde et en Chine. Comme en moyenne les a\u00e9rosols ont un effet de refroidissement, (bien que certain a\u00e9rosols \u00e0 effet absorbant comme le noir de carbone (suie) participent au r\u00e9chauffement global), la r\u00e9duction du niveau actuel des a\u00e9rosols (en particulier des sulfates) \u00e9quivaut \u00e0 favoriser le r\u00e9chauffement. Il est important de noter que bien que le refroidissement d\u00fb aux a\u00e9rosols et le r\u00e9chauffement d\u00fb aux gaz \u00e0 effet de serre peuvent avoir un petit effet d\u2019annulation r\u00e9ciproque, cela n\u2019est pas vrai sur une base locale. L\u2019id\u00e9e que nous pourrions accro\u00eetre l\u2019\u00e9mission des a\u00e9rosols pour contrebalancer le r\u00e9chauffement global a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9crit comme un \u201cmarch\u00e9 faustien<\/a>\u201d parce qu\u2019il impliquerait d\u2019accro\u00eetre ind\u00e9finiment les \u00e9missions pour compenser les GES (gaz \u00e0 effet de serre) accumul\u00e9s dans l\u2019atmosph\u00e8re, ce qui aurait pour effet d\u2019augmenter les co\u00fbts mon\u00e9taires et sanitaires. <\/p>\n

Est-ce que tout cela a une influence sur la sensibilit\u00e9 climatique globale (quel serait le r\u00e9chauffement qui r\u00e9sulterait d\u2019un doublement de la quantit\u00e9 de CO2) ou sur les sc\u00e9narios b\u00e2tis par le GIEC pour projeter les changement climatiques jusqu\u2019en 2100 ? C\u2019est ici que je suis le plus en d\u00e9saccord avec les commentaires entendus dans cette \u00e9mission.
\nPremi\u00e8rement, si on essayait d\u2019estimer la sensibilit\u00e9 climatique uniquement \u00e0 partir des r\u00e9ponses du 20\u00e8me si\u00e8cle, nous aurions besoin de conna\u00eetre un certain nombre de choses tr\u00e8s exactement : principalement la magnitude de tous les for\u00e7ages significatifs. N\u00e9anmoins, les incertitudes, en particulier sur les diff\u00e9rents effets des a\u00e9rosols emp\u00eachent une d\u00e9termination exacte fond\u00e9e sur la seule p\u00e9riode instrumentale. Bien qu\u2019il soit vrai que, toutes choses \u00e9gales par ailleurs, une am\u00e9lioration du chiffrage du refroidissement associ\u00e9 aux a\u00e9rosols devrait conduire \u00e0 une am\u00e9lioration de l\u2019estimation de la sensibilit\u00e9 climatique, les barres d\u2019erreur sont trop grandes pour que cela prenne de l\u2019importance. L\u2019estimation de 3 +\/-1 \u00b0C (pour le doublement du CO2) fond\u00e9e sur des pal\u00e9o-donn\u00e9es et des \u00e9tudes sur mod\u00e8les reste valable, m\u00eame apr\u00e8s cette \u00e9mission.<\/p>\n

Deuxi\u00e8mement, est-ce qu\u2019une r\u00e9\u00e9valuation de l\u2019effet des a\u00e9rosols implique que les projections pour 2100 doivent \u00eatre pires que celles d\u00e9j\u00e0 sugg\u00e9r\u00e9es ? Si la sensibilit\u00e9 du climat reste entre les bornes consid\u00e9r\u00e9es dans le TRE (Troisi\u00e8me Rapport d\u2019Evaluation) du GIEC, (ce qui, je l\u2019affirme, est encore le cas), la r\u00e9ponse est non.
\nLe sc\u00e9nario le plus extr\u00eame d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 dans le TRE (A1F1<\/a>) consid\u00e8re d\u00e9j\u00e0 une forte r\u00e9duction du for\u00e7age par les a\u00e9rosols du type sulfate ce qui fait que le changement de temp\u00e9rature est presque exclusivement fonction du for\u00e7age par les gaz \u00e0 effet de serre. Ce changement n\u2019est donc pas affect\u00e9 par une r\u00e9\u00e9valuation des effet indirects des a\u00e9rosols.
\nLe \u2019doublement\u2019 sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 de la vitesse de r\u00e9chauffement dans le futur compar\u00e9 m\u00eame au sc\u00e9nario le plus extr\u00eame d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par le GIEC est donc hautement exag\u00e9r\u00e9. Les cons\u00e9quences suppos\u00e9es comme l\u2019ass\u00e8chement du bassin de l\u2019Amazone, la fonte du Groenland, et l\u2019\u00e9tablissement d\u2019un climat nord-africain en Grande-Bretagne sont de simples extrapolations construites \u00e0 partir de ces exag\u00e9rations.<\/p>\n

Ces conclusions sont-elles le reflet fid\u00e8le de ce que les scientifiques cit\u00e9s dans l\u2019\u00e9mission voulaient dire ? \u2013 Cela n\u2019est pas connu. N\u00e9anmoins, si ces notions extr\u00eames peuvent faire le succ\u00e8s d\u2019une \u00e9mission de t\u00e9l\u00e9vision, elles n\u2019en desservent pas moins la science.
\n<\/lang_fr><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It just so happens that most of the posts on this site have tried to counteract arguments from those who would sow fake “uncertainty” in the climate debate. But lest our readers feel that we are unjustifiably certain about our knowledge, let us look at a recent example of the opposite tendency: too much certainty. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17,1,3],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-105","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-aerosols","7":"category-climate-science","8":"category-greenhouse-gases","9":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}