Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

  • Share
  • Read Later
Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

Lone tourists walk along Red Square in heavy smog, caused by peat fires in nearby forests, in central Moscow, Aug. 9, 2010.

How can NASA physicist and climatologist James E. Hansen, writing in the New York Times today, “say with high confidence” that recent heat waves in Texas and  Russia “were not natural events” but actually “caused by human-induced climate change”?

It wasn’t all that long ago that respected MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel flatly refuted the notion that you can pinpoint global warming as the cause of an extreme weather event. “It’s statistical nonsense,” he told PBS.

In 2005, Emanuel reported that hurricane intensity, which is fed by warmth, had increased some 80 percent during the previous 50 years, a period during which temperatures had increased more dramatically than any time in at least 500 years. Nonetheless, he asserted, that didn’t mean Hurricane Katrina, the sixth strongest Atlantic storm on record, had been brought on by climate change.

(MORE: Cutting Carbon Means More than Fancy Bookkeeping)

Even with a multitude of extreme weather events in recent years — tornadoes in New York City, blizzards in Washington, D.C., 15,000 warm-temperature records shattered across the U.S. in March — each consistent with computer models of a warming world, Emanuel and many other noted scientists have been unwilling to attribute any one event to global warming. There’s just too much variability in the weather, these experts say, and their dedication to data has helped prop open the door for “denialists” to sow doubt about the reality of our warming world.

But Hansen’s shot across the bow this morning indicates that the unwillingness to point fingers may be changing. According to a peer-reviewed paper Hansen has submitted to a leading scientific journal and made available to prior to publication, scientists can now state “with a high degree of confidence” that some extremely high temperatures are in fact caused by global warming, simply because they occur much more frequently than they used to. (A preliminary draft of the article is available here.)

Hansen’s reasoning has to do with math. Statisticians employ standard deviation to measure variability; it’s the calculation pollsters use to determine margin of error, and it’s especially valuable when looking at the weather. Perfect distribution of standard deviation is graphed as the familiar bell curve; about two-thirds of the time, data points fall in the middle of the bell — or within one standard deviation of the mean.

Hansen, with co-authors Reto Ruedy, also of NASA, and Makiko Sato, of Columbia University, has crunched decades’ worth of readings from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world as well as satellite observations and measurements from Antarctic research stations. The aim: to figure out how often temperatures varied from the mean — and how far they varied — during two periods.

(MORE: The Weekend of 100 Tornadoes: Are Killer Storms Being Fueled by Climate Change?)

In the paper, which confirmed has been peer-reviewed, the authors show that extreme outliers of more than three standard deviations above the mean temperature covered between six and thirteen percent of the globe during the years 2003 to 2008. If they were normally distributed and similar to the climactic record, that should have been just a 0.1-to-0.2 percent frequency of an extreme heat event. (That’s about exactly as often as a perfect bell curve predicts they would occur.) Hansen dubs this difference a “three-sigma anomaly,” for the Greek-letter symbol for standard deviation. And in the world of statistics, these anomalies represent a stunning 10-fold increase in extreme weather events.

Hansen says the heat wave that struck Texas and Oklahoma last summer and the Moscow heat wave of 2010 (which caused 11,000 deaths in the city) are examples of three-sigma anomalies. In a paper published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, wrote that it was 80 percent probable that the Moscow heat wave had been caused by global warming.

“These three-sigma anomalies,” Hansen says, “we can now say are due to global warming.” But what about the extreme cold snaps climate-change deniers keep pointing to? Even with global warming, Hansen told in an email, there “is still a broad bell curve. In fact, it has become broader, which means there will still be times when a season is colder than average. When that happens [people] should not say, ‘What happened to global warming?’ It will still be there — they are just looking at natural variability.”

Back in 1988, when Hansen was among the first and most credible scientists to sound the alarm about global warming, he, Ruedy and several co-authors came up with the concept of “climate dice.” Imagine dice with two sides red (for hot), two sides blue (for cold) and two sides white (average temperatures). If you roll the dice, you’re equally likely to get any result. With continued emissions of greenhouse gas, however, the authors predicted that by the early 21st century, four of the sides would be red.

“The climate dice are loaded now, just as we said back in the 1980s that they would be,” Hansen wrote to “People should be able to recognize the change, especially the increasingly extreme events. Don’t be surprised if there are more examples this summer.”

MORE: Fighting Climate Change by Not Focusing on Climate Change


I am looking forward to the day when James Hansen is charged with fraud for claiming that record cold weather is really global warming.


James Hansen, you are a disgrace, trying to convince gullible people that record cold weather is really global warming is just sick! Get a real job where you don't have to lie!


Anthropogenic Global Warming is nonsense!  According to the geologic record, during the last 1 million years The Earth has gone through 7 ice age-interglacial warming cycles, each ice age lasting about 100 thousand years and and each interglacial warming cycle lasting about 20 thousand years. In other words during the last 1 million years, the earth has been a snowball-ice planet for about 700 thousand years. Since the end of the last ice age about 20 thousand years ago,  Mean Sea Level has risen about 300 feet, a lot of glaciers have melted and average atmospheric temp. has increased about 20 degrees F. This natural cycle is created by cyclic changes in the Earth's Orbit, Earth's spin, Medium and Short Sun output cycles and the movement of Continents through Continental Drift. Man made CO2 accounts for about 1% annually of the approximately 750 gigatons of natural  CO2 present in the atmosphere. CO2 is an Atmospheric Trace Gas, 1 molecule of CO2 for about 2500 molecules of other Atomospheric Gases and about 1000 additional molecules of water vapor and water droplets (clouds) which accounts for about 95% of the so called Green House effect.


MickG Your pseudo science excuses are so full of holes,  I do not want to begin to address your foolishness. Suffice to say that by far the majority of scientists in the know, disagree with you. 

To others reading this. The science majority mentioned above, have generally given up responding to this, head in the sand excuse making, because they do not have the time to dignify the blinkered view with a legitimate argument. 


@MickG So, going by what you say, the planet should now, after 20,000 years of the current inter-glacial, be rapidly cooling down as we approach the next 100,000 year Ice Age, shouldn't it?

Yet, all indicators amply demonstrate that the planet is in fact heating up, not cooling down.

And while CO2 is indeed a trace gas in the atmosphere, it's a powerful one, and without it the Earth would be a snowball. We don't need to tip the balance by spewing 12 Billion Tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every YEAR, and therefore preventing Earth's natural systems to find an equilibrium, to make the Earth a lot like Venus. 

As you point out, with regards to CO2, it doesn't take much. A little dab will do ya.


@ZenGalacticore @MickG Sorry, there is no CO2 tipping point. Looking back at the Science already laid down by the geologic record, presently we have the 2nd least amount of atmospheric CO2 during the last 400 million years except for the  end of the Carboniferous.  And during this 400 million year period CO2 did not always track with Atmospheric Temp. More CO2 means that plants grow faster and therefore animals have more to eat. And you're right that the Earth is nearing the end of the Latest Interglacial Warming cycle and future generations will be frantically trying to figure out how to Geo Engineer the Earth to  keep it from cooling down for the next 100 year ice age cycle. You should take a simple hint from the cause of short term climate change.  Night Climate  is colder than  Day Climate.  And the Winter Climate is Colder than the Summer Climate.  Why?  Its the Sun, Dummy not atmospheric CO2.  There is no danger of the earth turning into Venus unless Earth loses its H2O which is not likely. H2O has remained on Earth for at least 4 billion years as a liquid, solid and gas mainly because Earth has enough gravity to keep H2O from evaporating into space.