# Is Climate Change Time-Reversible?

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{6}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Time Reversibility

## 3. New Strategies to Detect Time Reversibility on Stationary Time Series

**Condition**

**1.**

#### 3.1. Strategy 1: For Detecting Time Reversibility

- We estimate a conventional autoregressive process (also called pseudo-causal model) by OLS, and the lag order p is selected using information criteria (for instance, AIC or BIC).
- We test the normality in the residuals of the AR(p). If the null hypothesis of Gaussianity is not rejected, we cannot identify a MAR(r,s) model, and for the reasons above, we have a time-reversible process. Moreover, if the null hypothesis of normality is rejected and the estimated p is an odd number, the condition $r=s$ can never be satisfied. According to Condition 1, this result would allow us to identify our process as time-irreversible. However, the selection of p might not be univocal and depend on the information criterion employed. As such, to have more robust results before proceeding to the next step, we increase p by one unit so that $r=s$ is still possible. In the alternative case that p is an even number, we directly proceed to the next step.
- We select a model among all MAR(r,s) specifications with $r+s=p$ if p is an even number; otherwise $r+s=p+1$. This step is performed using a maximum likelihood approach (see Giancaterini and Hecq 2022 and references therein). In the selection procedure, we also include the model given by the restricted likelihood that imposes commonalities in causal and noncausal parameters (the model with the same restrictions as in Condition 1). Note that when we compute the information criteria of the model with restricted likelihood, instead of estimating p parameters (or $p+1$ if p is an odd number), we estimate $p/2$ of them (or $(p+1)/2$), implying a smaller penalty term. Finally, we choose the model with the smallest information criteria.

#### 3.2. Strategy 2: For Detecting Time Reversibility

- 3.
- We select a model among all MAR(r,s) specifications with $r+s=p$ if p is an even number (otherwise $r+s=p+1$). Then, we choose the one with the largest likelihood (since we are considering models with the same number of parameters).
- 4.
- If the selected model is the one with $r=s$ (in our previous example, it was the MAR(1,1)), we compute a likelihood ratio test, taking into account the same restrictions as in Condition 1). If we do not reject the test’s null hypothesis, we have TR. On the other hand, if we reject the null hypothesis, we identify the process under investigation as time-irreversible.

#### 3.3. Simulation Study

- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.8$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.8$; time-reversible process;
- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.8$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.5$; time-irreversible process;
- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.8$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.1$; time-irreversible process;
- MAR(1,0): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.8$; time-irreversible process.

- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.95$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.95$; time-reversible process;
- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.95$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.5$; time-irreversible process;
- MAR(1,1): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.95$, ${\phi}_{0}=0.1$; time-irreversible process;
- MAR(1,0): ${\varphi}_{0}=0.95$; time-irreversible process.

## 4. Testing for Time Reversibility on Non-Stationary Processes

## 5. Is Climate Change Time-Reversible?

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Note

1 | Chen et al. (2000) state that to jointly test ${X}_{t,k}$ for a collection of k values, a portmanteau test is required. |

## References

- Backus, David, and Patrick Kehoe. 1992. International evidence on the historical properties of business cycles. The American Economic Review 82: 864–88. [Google Scholar]
- Belaire-Franch, Jorge, and Dulce Contreras. 2003. Tests for time reversibility: A complementarity analysis. Economics Letters 81: 187–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breidt, Jay F., and Richard Davis. 1992. Time-reversibility, identifiability and independence of innovations for stationary time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis 13: 377–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breidt, Jay F., Richard Davis, Keh-Shin Lh, and Murray Rosenblatt. 1991. Maximum likelihood estimation for noncausal autoregressive processes. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 36: 175–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Caesar, Levke, Gerrard McCarthy, David Thornalley, Niamh Cahill, and Stefan Rahmstorf. 2021. Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium. Nature Geoscience 14: 118–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Wenju, Simon Borlace, Matthieu Lengaigne, Peter Van Rensch, Matthew Collins, Gabriel Vecchi, Axel Timmermann, Agus Santoso, Micheal McPhaden, Lixin Wu, and et al. 2014. Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change 4: 111–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cai, Wenju, Agus Santoso, Matthew Collins, Boris Dewitte, Christina Karamperidou, Jong-Seong Kug, Matthieu Lengaigne, Michael McPhaden, Malte Stuecker, Andréa Taschetto, and et al. 2021. Changing El Niño-Southern Oscillation in a warming climate. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2: 628–44. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Wenju, Guojian Wang, Agus Santoso, Micheal McPhaden, Lixin Wu, Fei-Fei Jin, Axel Timmermann, Mat Collins, Gabriel Vecchi, Matthieu Lengaigne, and et al. 2015. Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change 5: 132–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Yi-Ting, Ray Chou, and Chung-Ming Kuan. 2000. Testing time reversibility without moment restrictions. Journal of Econometrics 95: 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, Robert M., and Neslihan Sakarya. 2016. The econometrics of the hodrick-prescott filter. Review of Economics and Statistics 98: 310–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeConto, Robert M., David Pollard, Richard Alley, Isabella Velicogna, Edward Gasson, Natalya Gomez, Shaina Sadai, Alan Condron, Daniel M. Gilford, Erica L. Ashe, and et al. 2021. The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea-level rise from Antarctica. Nature 593: 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, Carmen, and Mark Steel. 1998. On bayesian modeling of fat tails and skewness. Journal of the American Statistical Association 93: 359–71. [Google Scholar]
- Fries, Sébastien. 2021. Conditional moments of noncausal alpha-stable processes and the prediction of bubble crash odds. Journal of Business Economic Statistics 40: 1596–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fries, Sébastien, and Jean-Michel Zakoian. 2019. Mixed causal-noncausal ar processes and the modelling of explosive bubbles. Econometric Theory 35: 1234–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Giancaterini, Francesco, and Alain Hecq. 2022. Inference in mixed causal and noncausal models with generalized student’s t-distributions. Econometrics and Statistics. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouriéroux, Christian, and Joann Jasiak. 2016. Filtering, prediction and simulation methods for noncausal processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis 37: 405–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouriéroux, Christian, and Joann Jasiak. 2022. Nonlinear Forecasts and Impulse Responses for Causal-Noncausal (S)VAR Models. Available online: https://www.jjstats.com/papers/PREDIMPULS.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- Gouriéroux, Christian, and Jean-Michel Zakoian. 2013. Explosive Bubble Modelling by Noncausal Process. Paris: Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique (CREST). [Google Scholar]
- Hallin, Marc, Claude Lefevre, and Madan L. Puri. 1988. On time-reversibility and the uniqueness of moving average representations for non-gaussian stationary time series. Biometrika 75: 170–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, Karina Von Schuckmann, David J. Beerling, Junji Cao, Shaun Marcott, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Michael J. Prather, Eelco J. Rohling, and et al. 2017. Young people’s burden: Requirement of negative co 2 emissions. Earth System Dynamics 8: 577–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hecq, Alain, Lenard Lieb, and Sean Telg. 2016. Identification of mixed causal-noncausal models in finite samples. Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 123/124: 307–31. [Google Scholar]
- Hecq, A., and E. Voisin. 2021. Predicting bubble bursts in oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic with mixed causal-noncausal models. Forthcoming in Advances in Econometrics in honor of Joon Y. Park. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10916.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- Hencic, Andrew, and Christian Gouriéroux. 2015. Noncausal autoregressive model in application to bitcoin/usd exchange rates. In Econometrics of Risk. Cham: Springer, pp. 17–40. [Google Scholar]
- Hinich, Melvin J., and Philip Rothman. 1998. Frequency-domain test of time reversibility. Macroeconomic Dynamics 2: 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Holster, Andrew Thomas. 2003. The criterion for time symmetry of probabilistic theories and the reversibility of quantum mechanics. New Journal of Physics 5: 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPC. 2014. International Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- IPC. 2022. International Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ (accessed on 5 September 2022).
- Lanne, Markku, and Pentti Saikkonen. 2011. Noncausal autoregressions for economic time series. Journal of Time Series Econometrics 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Levesque, Daniel, and Loup Verlet. 1993. Molecular dynamics and time reversibility. Journal of Statistical Physics 72: 519–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Shujun, Lixin Wu, Yun Yang, Tao Geng, Wenju Cai, Bolan Gan, Zhaohui Chen, Zhao Jing, Guojian Wang, and Xiaohui Ma. 2020. The pacific decadal oscillation less predictable under greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change 10: 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovejoy, Thomas E., and Carlos Nobre. 2018. Amazon Tipping Point. Science Advances 4: eaat2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Meinshausen, Malte, Elisabeth Vogel, Alexander Nauels, Katja Lorbacher, Nicolai Meinshausen, David Etheridge, Paul Fraser, Stephen Montzka, Peter Rayner, Cathy Trudinger, and et al. 2017. Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (cmip6). Geoscientific Model Development 10: 2057–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Morana, Claudio, and Giacomo Sbrana. 2019. Some financial implications of global warming: An empirical assessment. Economic Modelling 81: 274–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proietti, Tommaso. 2021. Peaks, gaps, and time-reversibility of economic time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsey, James B., and Philip Rothman. 1996. Time irreversibility and business cycle asymmetry. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 28: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravn, Morten, and Harald Uhlig. 2002. On adjusting the hodrick-prescott filter for the frequency of observations. Review of Economics and Statistics 84: 371–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim. 2008. Global warming: Stop worrying, start panicking? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 14239–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Solomon, Susan, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, and Pierre Friedlingstein. 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 1704–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Wald, Robert. 1980. Quantum gravity and time reversibility. Physical Review D 21: 2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, Gideon. 1975. Time-reversibility of linear stochastic processes. Journal of Applied Probability 12: 831–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunderling, Nico, Jonathan Donges, Jürgen Kurths, and Ricarda Winkelmann. 2021. Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming. Earth System Dynamics 12: 601–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Climate time series. (

**a**) Annual data for global land and ocean temperature anomalies. (

**b**) Annual data for global land temperature anomalies. (

**c**) Annual data for global ocean temperature anomalies. (

**d**) Annual data for solar activity. (

**e**) Annual data for greenhouses gas. (

**f**) Annual data for nitrous oxide. (

**g**) Monthly data for global component of climate at a glance. (

**h**) Monthly data for global surface temperature change. (

**i**) Monthly data for global mean sea level. (

**j**) Monthly data for Southern Oscillation index. (

**k**) Monthly data for North Atlantic Oscillation index. (

**l**) Monthly data for Pacific Decadal Oscillation index. (

**m**) Monthly data for Northern Hemisphere sea ice area. (

**n**) Monthly data for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area.

**Figure 2.**Cyclical components of the detrended time series. (

**a**) Annual data for cyclical component of global land and ocean temperature anomalies. (

**b**) Annual data for cyclical component of global land temperature anomalies. (

**c**) Annual data for cyclical component of global ocean temperature anomalies. (

**d**) Annual data for cyclical component of solar activity. (

**e**) Annual data for cyclical component of greenhouses gas. (

**f**) Annual data for cyclical component of nitrous oxide. (

**g**) Monthly data for cyclical component of global component of climate at a glance. (

**h**) Monthly data for cyclical component of global surface temperature change. (

**i**) Monthly data for cyclical component of global mean sea level.

**Table 1.**Frequencies with which time irreversibility is detected when the error term has a symmetric Student’s-t distribution ($\gamma $ = 1) and ${\nu}_{0}=3$. Finally, r and s are assumed as unknown and p as known.

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 7.1% | 16.4% | 8.1% |

$T=200$ | 3.1% | 7.5% | 11.5% |

$T=500$ | 1.4% | 5.0% | 11% |

$T=1000$ | 0.8% | 4.5% | 13.6 % |

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.5,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 51.4% | 63.7% | 20.7% |

$T=200$ | 77.9% | 84.8% | 29.4% |

$T=500$ | 99.0% | 99.5% | 40.7% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 51.8 % |

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.1,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 87.4% | 93.2% | 33.2% |

$T=200$ | 99.6% | 99.9% | 43.2% |

$T=500$ | 100% | 100% | 57.5% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 68.4% |

MAR(1,0); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 91.5% | 93.2% | 34.2% |

$T=200$ | 99.6% | 99.9% | 43.8% |

$T=500$ | 100% | 100% | 58.9% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 70.1% |

**Table 2.**Frequencies with which time irreversibility is detected when the error term has a symmetric Student’s-t distribution ($\gamma $ = 1) with ${\nu}_{0}=3$ and p, r, and s are assumed as unknown.

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 20.9% | 21.6% | 8.1% |

$T=200$ | 9.5% | 12.6% | 11.5% |

$T=500$ | 3.5% | 7.1% | 11% |

$T=1000$ | 4.3% | 7.8% | 13.6 % |

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.5,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 61.6% | 67.1% | 20.7% |

$T=200$ | 79.0% | 85.2% | 29.4% |

$T=500$ | 99.0% | 99.5% | 40.7% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 51.8 % |

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.1,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 92.2% | 93.8% | 33.2% |

$T=200$ | 99.8% | 99.9% | 43.2% |

$T=500$ | 100% | 100% | 57.5% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 68.4% |

MAR(1,1); ${\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | |||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | $\mathit{RR}\left(\mathbf{1996}\right)$ | |

$T=100$ | 95% | 95.7% | 34.2% |

$T=200$ | 99.9% | 99.9% | 43.8% |

$T=500$ | 100% | 100% | 58.9% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% | 70.1% |

**Table 3.**Frequencies with which time irreversibility is detected on non-stationary time series; r and s are assumed as unknown and p as known. Data are considered to have quarterly frequency ($\lambda =1600$).

${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{Y}}:\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\mathbf{MAR}(1,1);\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.8;\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | ||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | |

$T=100$ | 15.1% | 33.3% |

$T=200$ | 6.7% | 8.1% |

$T=500$ | 1.4% | 5.0% |

$T=1000$ | 0.8% | 4.5% |

${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{Y}}:\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\mathbf{MAR}(1,1);\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.5;\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | ||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | |

$T=100$ | 40.6% | 59.5% |

$T=200$ | 58.0% | 69.7% |

$T=500$ | 86.7% | 94.8% |

$T=1000$ | 99.2% | 100% |

${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{Y}}:\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\mathbf{MAR}(1,1);\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8,\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\phi}}_{0}=0.1;\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | ||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | |

$T=100$ | 71.9% | 89.2% |

$T=200$ | 92.0% | 97.3% |

$T=500$ | 99.6% | 100% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% |

${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{Y}}:\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\mathbf{MAR}(1,0);\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\varphi}}_{0}=0.8;\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{4pt}{0ex}}{\mathit{\nu}}_{0}=3$, $\mathit{\gamma}=1$ | ||

Strategy 1 | Strategy 2 | |

$T=100$ | 75.1% | 91.1% |

$T=200$ | 93.4% | 98.8% |

$T=500$ | 100% | 100% |

$T=1000$ | 100% | 100% |

**Table 4.**Estimated coefficients of the time series identified as non-Gaussian. The figures in parentheses are the standard errors computed by using the Hessian matrix.

${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{GHG}}$ | ${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{N}2\mathit{O}}$ | ${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{GCAG}}$ | ${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{GISTEMP}}$ | ${\mathit{cc}}^{\mathit{GMSL}}$ | SOI | NAO | PDO | NH | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{1}$ | 0.9620 | 0.9818 | 0.4417 | 0.4003 | 1.1233 | −0.0933 | −0.0966 | / | 0.1657 |

(0.0841) | (0.0722) | (0.0225) | (0.0239) | (0.0231) | (0.0327) | (0.00342) | (0.0300) | ||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{2}$ | −0.3230 | −0.2413 | 0.1443 | 0.1245 | −0.1169 | −0.1315 | / | / | −0.0071 |

(0.0822) | (0.0980) | (0.0225) | (0.0239) | (0.0347) | (0.0326) | (0.0306) | |||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{3}$ | / | −0.0016 | / | / | −0.6729 | / | / | / | −0.0824 |

(0.1030) | (0.0336) | (0.0304) | |||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{4}$ | / | −0.2028 | / | / | 0.3971 | / | / | / | 0.0025 |

(0.0753) | (0.0335) | (0.0303) | |||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{5}$ | / | / | / | / | 0.0898 | / | / | / | −0.0025 |

(0.0346) | (0.0303) | ||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{6}$ | / | / | / | / | −0.1798 | / | / | / | −0.0390 |

(0.0229) | (0.0303) | ||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{7}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.0058 |

(0.0303) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{8}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | −0.0136 |

(0.0303) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{9}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | −0.0926 |

(0.0303) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{10}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.0496 |

(0.0304) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{11}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.1039 |

(0.0305) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\varphi}}_{12}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.7015 |

(0.0300) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\phi}}_{1}$ | / | / | / | / | 0.0880 | 0.4951 | 0.2925 | 0.9183 | 0.7655 |

(0.0225) | (0.0313) | (0.0328) | (0.0215) | (0.0391) | |||||

${\widehat{\phi}}_{2}$ | / | / | / | / | 0.2709 | 0.3169 | / | −0.1365 | −0.0512 |

(0.0225) | (0.0313) | (0.0291) | (0.0391) | ||||||

${\widehat{\phi}}_{3}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.0063 | / |

(0.0291) | |||||||||

${\widehat{\phi}}_{4}$ | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 0.0664 | / |

(0.0214) | |||||||||

$\widehat{\nu}$ | 19.8 | 13.0 | 5.3 | 9.9 | 6.8 | 8.0 | 96.2 | 9.1 | 8.2 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Giancaterini, F.; Hecq, A.; Morana, C.
Is Climate Change Time-Reversible? *Econometrics* **2022**, *10*, 36.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics10040036

**AMA Style**

Giancaterini F, Hecq A, Morana C.
Is Climate Change Time-Reversible? *Econometrics*. 2022; 10(4):36.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics10040036

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Giancaterini, Francesco, Alain Hecq, and Claudio Morana.
2022. "Is Climate Change Time-Reversible?" *Econometrics* 10, no. 4: 36.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics10040036