{"id":403,"date":"2007-02-16T02:09:46","date_gmt":"2007-02-16T07:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=403"},"modified":"2007-04-17T16:21:48","modified_gmt":"2007-04-17T21:21:48","slug":"what-triggers-ice-ages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/02\/what-triggers-ice-ages\/","title":{"rendered":"What triggers ice ages? O que Dispara as Eras Glaciais?<\/lang_po> Buzul \u00c7a\u011flar\u0131n\u0131 Tetikleyen Nedir?<\/lang_tk>Qu’est ce qui d\u00e9clenche les glaciations?<\/lang_fr>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

by Rasmus Benestad, with contributions from Caspar & Eric<\/small><\/p>\n

In a recent article in Climatic Change,<\/a> D.G. Martinson and W.C. Pitman III discuss a new hypothesis explaining how the climate could change abruptly between ice ages and inter-glacial (warm) periods. They argue that the changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun in isolation is not sufficient to explain the estimated high rate of change, and that there must be an amplifying feedback process kicking in. The necessity for a feedback is not new, as the Swedish Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry), Svante Arrhenius, suggested already in 1896 that CO2 could act as an amplification mechanism. In addition, there is the albedo feedback, where the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, scales with the area of the ice- and snow-cover. And are clouds as well as other aspects<\/a> playing a role.
\n<\/p>\n

por Rasmus Benestad, com contribui\u00e7\u00f5es de Caspar & Eric<\/small><\/p>\n

Em um artigo recente da Climatic Change,<\/a> D.G. Martinson e W.C. Pitman III discutem uma nova hip\u00f3tese que explica como o clima pode mudar abruptamente entre eras glaciais e per\u00edodos interglaciais (quentes). Eles argumentam que as mudan\u00e7as na \u00f3rbita da Terra ao redor do Sol em isolado n\u00e3o s\u00e3o suficientes para explicar as altas taxas de mudan\u00e7as estimadas, e que deve necessariamente haver a a\u00e7\u00e3o de um mecanismo de feedback (ou retro-alimenta\u00e7\u00e3o) amplificando o processo. A necessidade de um feedback n\u00e3o \u00e9 nova, pois o sueco ganhador do Pr\u00eamio Nobel (Qu\u00edmica), Svante Arrhenius, j\u00e1 havia sugerido em 1896 que o CO2 deveria agir como um mecanismo de amplifica\u00e7\u00e3o. Al\u00e9m do mais, existe o feedback do albedo, pelo qual a quantidade de radia\u00e7\u00e3o solar que \u00e9 refletida de volta ao espa\u00e7o \u00e9 escalon\u00e1vel com a \u00e1rea de cobertura de gelo e neve. E existem nuvens bem como outros aspectos<\/a> envolvidos.<\/p>\n

\"Orbital<\/a> A hip\u00f3tese de Martinson & Pitman III formula que a entrada de \u00e1gua doce funciona em conson\u00e2ncia com o ciclo de Milankovitch<\/a> e o feedback de albedo<\/a>. Eles concluem que os ‘maiores’ t\u00e9rminos podem somente acontecer ap\u00f3s um ac\u00famulo de gelo grande o suficiente para isolar o Artico, inibindo o fluxo de entrada de \u00e1gua doce at\u00e9 um ponto em que o aumento da salinidade na camada superficial, atrav\u00e9s de um vagaroso e cont\u00ednuo crescimento do gelo marinho, causa uma invers\u00e3o das \u00e1guas marinhas do \u00c1rtico (pelo efeito na circula\u00e7\u00e3o atmosf\u00e9rica e nas correntes oce\u00e2nicas). A invers\u00e3o vertical traz \u00e1gua quente de baixo para cima, promovendo condi\u00e7\u00f5es mais favor\u00e1veis ao degelo. A salinidade tamb\u00e9m tem um papel, mas a hip\u00f3tese n\u00e3o menciona varia\u00e7\u00f5es de gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Algumas quest\u00f5es: Martinson e Pitman III esqueceram disso?<\/em> Ou os GEE representam somente uma pequena contribui\u00e7\u00e3o?<\/em> E, n\u00e3o poderiam as mudan\u00e7as nos GEE explicar boa parte da variabilidade?<\/em> Por outro lado, parece plaus\u00edvel que mudan\u00e7as na salinidade e na entrada de \u00e1gua doce poderiam afetar a forma\u00e7\u00e3o de gelo marinho e a convec\u00e7\u00e3o profunda<\/a>. Contudo, at\u00e9 o presente, a hip\u00f3tese proposta por Martinson and Pitman III \u00e9 meramente uma especula\u00e7\u00e3o, e estamos aguardando para ver se a hip\u00f3tese pode ser testada atrav\u00e9s de experimentos de modelos num\u00e9ricos (o que pode requerer modelos oce\u00e2nicos e de gelo marinho com maior resolu\u00e7\u00e3o que os atualmente usados em modelos clim\u00e1ticos globais). Seria interessante conduzir experimentos para avaliar a signific\u00e2ncia individual da \u00e1gua doce, dos GEE e o efeito combinado.<\/p>\n

Uma rea\u00e7\u00e3o ao trabalho de Martison e Pittman \u00e9: Onde est\u00e1 o c\u00e1lculo de energia?<\/em> Gases de efeito estufa contribuem somente com alguns W\/m2<\/sup><\/a>, em contraste com uma for\u00e7ante >40 do ciclo sazonal de Milankovich. Para esta nova id\u00e9ia ter m\u00e9rito, teria sido melhor ter no m\u00ednimo fluxos de calor em paralelo com a for\u00e7ante radioativa do CO2<\/sub>. Estudos de modelagem anteriores encontraram que GEE produzem aproximadamente 50% de todo \u00daltimo M\u00e1ximo Glacial (ingl\u00eas, LGM) para a resposta da temperatura atual (veja por exemplo Broccoli & Manabe<\/a>), a outra parte sendo o albedo, etc., que respondem ao ciclo sazonal de irradi\u00e2ncia. \u00c9 muito dif\u00edcil isolar completamente as causas individuais pois as mudan\u00e7as nos GEE podem produzir altera\u00e7\u00f5es na distribui\u00e7\u00e3o de nuvens e gelo marinho. Mas a grosso modo, se voc\u00ea rodar um LGM e somente somente reduzir o n\u00edvel do mar, introduzir as calotas de gelo, mudar a vegeta\u00e7\u00e3o, adicionar alguma poeria (embora esta ainda seja grosseira), ent\u00e3o voc\u00ea alcan\u00e7aria ao redor de 50% do caminho que voc\u00ea quer ir. Mude a concentra\u00e7\u00e3o de GEE e voc\u00ea chegaria mais pr\u00f3ximo. Isso \u00e9 mais ou menos o que Manabe e Stouffer<\/a> mostraram h\u00e1 quinze anos atr\u00e1s. A quest\u00e3o \u00e9 se realmente precisamos de algo mais, e se esse ‘algo mais’ tem for\u00e7a suficiente.<\/p>\n

traduzido por Ivan B. T. Lima e Fernando M. Ramos.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/lang_po>
\n
\n\"Orbital<\/a> Martinson & Pitman III’s hypothesis states that the fresh water input works in concert with the Milankovitch cycle<\/a> and the albedo feedback<\/a>. They conclude that ‘major’ terminations can only follow from glacial build-up of sufficient magnitude to isolate the Arctic, inhibiting the inflow of fresh water to the point that salinity buildup in the surface layer from slow but continuous growth of sea-ice, causes overturn of the Arctic (through the effect on the atmospheric circulation and the ocean currents). The vertical overturning brings warmer water up from below, setting conditions that are more favourable for ice metling. Salinity plays a role too, but the hypothesis does not mention variations in the greenhouse gases (GHGs). A few questions: Did Martinson and Pitman III forget this last point?<\/em> Or did the GHGs only represent a minor contribution?<\/em> And, could not changes in GHGs explain much of the variability?<\/em> On the other hand, it sounds plausible that changes in salinity and fresh water input may affect the sea-ice formation and the deep convection<\/a>. However, so far, the hypothesis proposed by Martinson and Pitman III is merely a speculation, and we are waiting to see if the hypothesis can be tested through numerical model experiments (which would require higher resolution sea-ice and ocean models than used in todays global climate models). It would be interesting to carry out experiments to assess the significance of the fresh water only, GHGs, and the combined effect.<\/p>\n

One reaction to the Martison and Pittman paper is: Where is the calculation of energy?<\/em> Greenhouse gases only contribute a couple of W\/m2<\/sup><\/a>, vs. the seasonal Milankovich forcing of >40. For this new idea to have merit, it had better have heat fluxes at least on par with the radiative forcing from CO2. Previous modeling studies find that GHG make up roughly 50% of the total LGM to present temperature response (see e.g. Broccoli & Manabe<\/a>), the other part being albedo etc that respond to the seasonal cycle of irradiance. It is tricky to completely isolate the individual causes because changes in GHG may produce altered cloud and sea ice distribution. But roughly speaking, if you do an LGM run and only reduce sea level, put in the ice sheets, change the vegetation, add some dust (though that one is still rough), then you get about 50% the way you want to go. Change the GHG concentrations and you get close. This is more or less what Manabe and Stouffer<\/a> showed 15 years ago. The question is do we need anything else, really, and does that ‘anything else’ pack sufficient punch.<\/p>\n


\nCaspar ve Eric\u2019in de katk\u0131lar\u0131yla Rasmus Benestad taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rland\u0131. (Ingilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren: Figen Mekik) <\/small><\/p>\n

Climatic Change<\/em> (Iklimsel De\u011fi\u015fim) dergisinde yeni \u00e7\u0131kan<\/a> ve D. G. Martinson ve W. C. Pitman III taraf\u0131ndan yaz\u0131lmi\u015f bir makalede buzul ve buzul-aras\u0131 \u00e7a\u011flar aras\u0131nda iklimin aniden nas\u0131l de\u011fi\u015febilece\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karan yeni bir hipotez sunuluyor. Yazarlar, sadece d\u00fcnyan\u0131n g\u00fcne\u015fin etraf\u0131ndaki y\u00f6r\u00fcngesindeki de\u011fi\u015fiklikleri ele al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n iklimde g\u00f6zlemlenen de\u011fi\u015fimleri a\u00e7\u0131klamaya yeterli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yl\u00fcyorlar; ve diyorlar ki geribildirimli b\u00fcy\u00fct\u00fcc\u00fc ba\u015fka bir etken olmal\u0131. Ancak geribildirim mekanizmasina gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi yeni bir fikir de\u011fil. Isve\u00e7li Nobel \u00f6d\u00fcl\u00fc sahip kimyager, Svante Arrhenius \u2018\u0131n 1896\u2019da \u00f6nerdi\u011fi gibi, CO2<\/sub> bu b\u00fcy\u00fct\u00fcc\u00fc etken olabilir. Ayr\u0131ca, albedo geribildirimi de var. Bu da g\u00fcne\u015ften d\u00fcnyaya varan \u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ne kadar\u0131n\u0131n evrene geri yans\u0131t\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n buz ve karla kapl\u0131 b\u00f6lgelerin b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle do\u011fru orant\u0131l\u0131 olu\u015fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi. Ve, bulutlar\u0131n ve benzeri ba\u015fka etkenlerin<\/a> de bir rol\u00fc olabilir mi?<\/p>\n

\"Orbital<\/a>Martinson ve III. Pitman\u2019\u0131n sav\u0131na g\u00f6re tatl\u0131 su katk\u0131lar\u0131ndaki de\u011fi\u015fkenlik Milankovitch d\u00f6ng\u00fcs\u00fc<\/a> ve albedo<\/a> geribildirimi ile ortak \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yor. Diyorlar ki, \u201cb\u00fcy\u00fck\u201d buzul \u00e7a\u011f\u0131 biti\u015fleri (termination) sadece belirli boyutlar\u0131 a\u015fan buzul birikiminden sonra meydana gelebilir. Yani buzullar Arktik b\u00f6lgesini izole eder ve b\u00f6lgeye tatl\u0131 su giri\u015fini \u00f6yle bir raddeye kadar engeller ki buz olu\u015fumundan artan su tuzlulu\u011fu Arktik sular\u0131n\u0131n alt-\u00fcst olmas\u0131na sebep olur (hava dola\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ve deniz ak\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n etkisiyle). Bu dikey devrinim derinden s\u0131cak sular\u0131n y\u00fczeye \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar ve b\u00f6ylelikle buzul erimesini h\u0131zland\u0131racak \u015fartlar yarat\u0131r. Tuzlulu\u011fun da bir rol\u00fc var tabii, ama bu sav sera gazlar\u0131n\u0131n konsantrasyonunda (SGK) bir de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi hesaba katm\u0131yor. Baz\u0131 sorular: Bu son noktay\u0131 Martinson ve Pitman III unuttular m\u0131? Ya da SGK\u2019lar\u0131n rol\u00fc k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck m\u00fcyd\u00fc? Ve SGK\u2019daki de\u011fi\u015fimler bu \u0131s\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fiminin buyuk k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 ac\u0131klayabilir mi? <\/em>. \u00d6te yandan, tuzluluk ve tatl\u0131 su katk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n deniz \u00fcst\u00fc buz olu\u015fumunu ve derin \u0131s\u0131yay\u0131m\u0131 (konveksyon) etkileyebilmesi<\/a> de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn. Ancak, Martinson ve III. Pitman\u2019in sav\u0131 hen\u00fcz sadece bir tahmin. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bu sav\u0131n say\u0131sal modellerle s\u0131nan\u0131p s\u0131nanam\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek istiyoruz (bu da bug\u00fcn kullan\u0131lan k\u00fcresel iklim modellerinde oldu\u011fundan daha y\u00fcksek rezol\u00fcsyonlu modellerin kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 gerektiriyor, \u00f6zellikle deniz buzu ve okyanus modellemelerinde). Sadece tatl\u0131 su katk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n etkisini, sonra sadece SGK\u2019nin etkisini, en son da ikisinin ortak etkisini \u00f6l\u00e7en deneyler ilgin\u00e7 sonu\u00e7lar \u00fcretecektir. <\/p>\n

Martinson ve III. Pitman\u2019\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na bir tepki de \u015fu: Enerji hesab\u0131 nerede? <\/em> Mevsimsel Milankovitch zorlamas\u0131 40 W\/m2<\/sup> kadar katk\u0131da bulunurken, SGK zorlamas\u0131 sadece bir-iki W\/m2<\/sup><\/a>. Bu yeni sav\u0131n de\u011ferini ispat etmek i\u00e7in, en az\u0131ndan CO2<\/sub>\u2019dan gelen \u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131m zorlamas\u0131na mukayese edilebilecek kadar \u0131s\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi hesaba kat\u0131lmal\u0131. \u00d6nceki modelleme \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 (mesela, Broccoli ve Manabe<\/a>) g\u00f6steriyor ki Son Buzul Ilerlemesinden (SBI-Last Glacial Maximum) bu g\u00fcne kadar olan \u0131s\u0131 fark\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fczde 50\u2019si SGK daki de\u011fi\u015fimler ile a\u00e7\u0131klanabiliyor, kalan y\u00fczde 50 de albedo ve di\u011fer mevsimsel \u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131m d\u00f6ng\u00fcs\u00fcne katk\u0131s\u0131 olan etkenlerden kaynaklan\u0131yor. Bu de\u011fi\u015fik zorlama ve nedenleri tek tek ay\u0131rmak g\u00fc\u00e7 \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc, mesela, SKG\u2019daki de\u011fi\u015fiklikler bulut ve deniz buzu da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirebilir. Ama kaba bir hesap yaparsak, SBI i\u00e7in, sadece deniz seviyesini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcr, buzul tabakalar\u0131 ekler, bitki \u00f6rt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fi\u015ftirir, ve biraz toz eklersek (ki bunu daha tam iyi saptayam\u0131yoruz), o zaman yolun y\u00fczde 50\u2019sini kat edebiliyoruz. SKG\u2019lar\u0131 de de\u011fi\u015ftirirsek, istedi\u011fimiz sonuca daha da yakla\u015fabiliyoruz. Bu a\u015fa\u011f\u0131 yukar\u0131 Manatabe ve Stouffer\u2019\u0131n <\/a> 15 y\u0131l \u00f6nce izah etti\u011fi \u015fey. Sorumuz \u015fu: ba\u015fka bir etkene ger\u00e7ekten gerek var m\u0131, ve bu etken ne kadar g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc?
\n<\/lang_tk>
\n
\nTraduit par Val\u00e9rie Masson Delmotte<\/small><\/p>\n

Dans un article r\u00e9cent de Climatic Change <\/a>, D.G. Martinson et W.C. Pitman III pr\u00e9sentent une nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se expliquant comment le climat pourrait changer de mani\u00e8re abrupte entre les p\u00e9riodes glaciaires et les p\u00e9riodes interglaciaires (chaudes). Ils mettent en avant le fait que les variations d’ensoleillement li\u00e9es \u00e0 l’orbite terrestre autour du Soleil ne sont pas suffisants pour expliquer la vitesse de ces transitions, et qu’il doit donc y avoir un processus d’amplification en jeu. La n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une telle r\u00e9troaction n’est pas une nouveaut\u00e9, puisque le Su\u00e9dois Svante Arrh\u00e9nius, prix Nobel de chimie, sugg\u00e9rait d\u00e8s 1896 que le CO2<\/sub> pouvait agir comme un m\u00e9canisme amplificateur. En outre, il y a la r\u00e9troaction li\u00e9e \u00e0 l’alb\u00e9do, pour laquelle la quantit\u00e9 de rayonnement solaire qui est r\u00e9fl\u00e9chie vers l’espace d\u00e9pend de l’extension spatiale de neige et de glace. Et puis les nuages et d’autres aspects <\/a> jouent un r\u00f4le.<\/p>\n

\"Orbital<\/a>L’hypoth\u00e8se de Martinson et Pitman III formule que l’apport d’eau douce joue de concert avec le cycle de Milankovitch<\/a> et la r\u00e9troaction d’alb\u00e9do <\/a> . Ils en concluent que les terminaisons “majeures” ne peuvent que r\u00e9sulter d’une accumulation de glace suffisante pour isoler l’Arctique, y supprimant tout apport d’eau douce jusqu’\u00e0 ce que l’augmentation de salinit\u00e9 des eaux de surface \u00e0 cause de la formation lente mais r\u00e9guli\u00e8re de glace de mer ne cause un m\u00e9lange vertical complet de l’Arctique (\u00e0 travers
\nl’effet de la circulation atmosph\u00e9rique et des courants marins). Le m\u00e9lange vertical apporte des eaux plus chaudes du bas, instaurant des conditions plus favorables \u00e0 la fonte de la glace. La salinit\u00e9 joue \u00e9galement un r\u00f4le, mais l’hypoth\u00e8se ne mentionne pas les changements des gaz \u00e0 effet de serre (GES). Quelques questions : est-ce que Martinson et Pitman ont oubli\u00e9 ce dernier point? Or est-ce que les GES n’ont repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 qu’une contribution mineure? Et, des changements de GES ne pourraient-ils pas expliquer une grande partie de la variabilit\u00e9? D’un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, il semble plausible que les changements de salinit\u00e9 et d’apport d’eau douce puissent avoir des cons\u00e9quences sur la formation de glace de mer et la convection profonde <\/a> . Jusqu’\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent, pourtant; l’hypoth\u00e8se de Martinson et Pitman III reste seulement une sp\u00e9culation, et nous attendons de voir si cette hypoth\u00e8se peut \u00eatre test\u00e9e \u00e0 l’aide de simulations num\u00e9riques (ce qui demanderait une meilleure r\u00e9solution
\ndans les mod\u00e8les d’oc\u00e9an et de glace de mer que celle qui est utilis\u00e9e dans les mod\u00e8les de climat globaux actuels). Ce serait int\u00e9ressant de conduire des exp\u00e9riences de simulations pour d\u00e9terminer l’importance du
\nbudget d’eau douce seul, celle des GES, et leurs effets combin\u00e9s. <\/p>\n

Une r\u00e9action au papier de Martinson et Pittamn est : O\u00f9 est le bilan d’\u00e9nergie? Les gaz \u00e0 effet de serre ne fournissent qu’une contribution de quelques W\/m\u00b2 <\/a>, \u00e0 mettre en regard du for\u00e7age saisonnier de Milankovitch (>40 W\/m\u00b2). Pour que cette nouvelle id\u00e9e soit de qualit\u00e9, il aurait fallu qu’elle prenne en compte les flux de chaleur au moins dus au for\u00e7age radiatif du CO2. Les simulations conduites pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment montrent que les GES sont responsables d’environ 50% du changement de temp\u00e9rature entre le dernier maximum glaciaire et l’actuel (voir Broccoli et Manabe <\/a>), l’autre partie \u00e9tant due \u00e0 l’alb\u00e9do etc. qui r\u00e9agissent aux variations saisonni\u00e8res d’ensoleillement. Il est difficile d’isoler compl\u00e8tement les facteurs individuels parce que les changements de GES peuvent modifier la distribution de nuages ou de glace de mer. Mais, pour sch\u00e9matiser, si vous faites une simulation glaciaire et que vous ne faites que diminuer le niveau de la mer, introduire les calottes de glace, changer la v\u00e9g\u00e9tation, et ajouter de la poussi\u00e8re dans l’atmosph\u00e8re (quoique ceci soit encore pr\u00e9liminaire), alors vous avec parcouru environ 50% du chemin vers une glaciation. Changez les concentrations en GES, et vous y \u00eates. Ceci est plus ou moins ce que Manabe et Stouffer <\/a> ont montr\u00e9, il y a 15 ans. La question est : avons-nous besoin de quelque chose en plus, vraiment, et ce “quelque chose” a-t-il suffisamment de punch?
\n<\/lang_fr><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Rasmus Benestad, with contributions from Caspar & Eric In a recent article in Climatic Change, D.G. Martinson and W.C. Pitman III discuss a new hypothesis explaining how the climate could change abruptly between ice ages and inter-glacial (warm) periods. They argue that the changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun in isolation is not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"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":[12,5,1,13,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-403","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-arctic-and-antarctic","7":"category-climate-modelling","8":"category-climate-science","9":"category-faq","10":"category-reporting-on-climate","11":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/403","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\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}