Measuring Climate Change

Figure 5: Climate Sensitivity measured in different parts of the world. Why are values so large in central Asia and northern Canada? Why the zeros in the North Atlantic?

Local Climate Sensitivities estimated from HadCRUT temperatures and CO2 concentrations using the ARX method. They are rounded to the nearest integer for display purposes. ( Figure 5  of my recent paper submitted to Proceedings of the Royal Society: A. )

Figure 5 is overwhelming evidence that CO2 does force temperature . No modeller has come up with anything close to Figure 5, because numerical models are just not good enough. They give a reasonable estimate of global climate sensitivity because they have been tweaked to do that.

Figure 3: The observed normalized impulse response of Carbon Dioxide concentration due to an impulse in CO2 emissions (solid line) derived from observations using the ARX method. Also shown is the model-derived normalized impulse response function of Meier-Reimer and Hasselmann (1987).

Figure 3 shows that numerical model estimates of the long rate of removal of atmospheric carbon are hopelessly wrong (but politically correct). In fact, half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is removed every 43 years.

Download preprint: Reid2022

 

4 Replies to “Measuring Climate Change”

  1. One thing that, as a non-scientist, has always concerned me about the climate debate is the constant negativity about it. Alarmism at its worst.

    There are entire countries in Africa that grow more food than they have for centuries, possibly ever. We have fewer famines. On a world-wide basis, people are better fed than they’ve ever been in the entire course of human history.

    1. I blame activist scientists and the media. Many of the former have based their entire careers on a discipline for which funding will only continue as long as people are worried. (I don’t see how you can be an activist and scientifically objective at the same time.) Many of the latter, journalists and editors, seem to regard it as their moral duty to whip up as much hysteria as possible, witness COVID.

  2. I am not sure what to do next. I am thinking of looking at specific localities in more detail. e.g. the place in Northern Siberia (not shown) where the Climate Sensitivity is 12. Probably just bad data but who knows? It should also be possible to distinguish between CO2-related changes and changes due to other causes.

    I am amazed at how good this method is. Why wasn’t this done 40 years ago? I suspect it is because, as soon as someone comes up with a new statistical technique, it is tried out in Econometrics where most of the cutting edge stats is published (and where there might be $$$ in it). This ARX technique may not work so well in Econometrics. It works for climate because it describes diffusion so well. The underlying “physics” in Econometrics may not be so tractable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.