Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Using Data from Climate Science to Teach Introductory Statistics
Gary Witt
Temple University
Journal of Statistics Education Volume 21, Number 1 (2013),
www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n1/witt.pdf
Copyright © 2013 by Gary Witt all rights reserved. This text may be freely shared amongindividuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent fromthe author and advance notification of the editor.
Key Words: Simple linear regression; Multiple linear regression; Arctic sea ice.

Abstract
This paper shows how the application of simple statistical methods can reveal to students
important insights from climate data. While the popular press is filled with contradictory
opinions about climate science, teachers can encourage students to use introductory-levelstatistics to analyze data for themselves on this important issue in public policy. Two detailed
examples demonstrate how climate data can be a useful tool in teaching introductory statistics.
The first example addresses the very important topic of the rate of decline of Arctic sea ice.
Many climate scientists believe that Arctic sea ice melt is accelerating. The simple data analysesof this paper are meant to encourage students to examine the evidence themselves. The second
example compares two possible explanations for the rise in global temperature over the last three
decades: changes in the intensity of sunlight or changes in the concentration of atmosphericcarbon dioxide. In addition to the specific data sources for these examples, the paper lists reliable
on-line catalogues of climate science databases for constructing other examples.

1. Introduction
Data from climate science are ideally suited for examples in introductory statistics for at least
three reasons.
First, the data have general interest, relating to a topic that is relevant to students and totheir future.
Second, simple statistical techniques that are the subject of the course are capable ofrevealing to students insights from the data.

1

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)



Third, easily accessible, well-documented data sets are available to both teachers andstudents.

In the 1980s when climate change first became newsworthy, hard data on many relevant
variables such as solar intensity and sea ice extent in polar regions (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report 2007) had only been collected for a short time. Overthe last quarter century, the data relevant for assessment of the impact of climate change haveaccumulated from satellite and surface observation. At the same time, climate scientists haverecognized the importance of educating a wider audience about new discoveries in their field andhave made data more easily available and more clearly documented. While climate science ingeneral is an extremely sophisticated user of statistics, many basic relationships, trends, andsources of variability can be illustrated clearly with graphs, summary statistics and simple linear
regression.
There is one further practical reason to use examples from climate science in university levelstatistics courses. As of January 7, 2013, there were 665 signatories of the American College &University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). These schools have committed todevelop a Climate Action Plan that (among other things) seeks to integrate sustainability into theeducational curriculum. Specifically the third paragraph of the ACUPCC posted on their website
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment states “Campuses that address
the climate challenge … by integrating sustainability into their curriculum will better serve theirstudents and meet their social mandate to help create a thriving, ethical and civil society.” This
paper was written to help schools achieve this goal by using data from climate science tosimultaneously teach statistical methods and expose students to the relevant facts from climate
science. For more details and a list of colleges and universities that have signed this commitment
see their website (ACUPCC 2007).
There are many stories to tell in climate science and statistics is a language well-suited to tellthem. This paper illustrates the use of climate science data with two such stories. The first
addresses the debate among climate scientists about the rate of decline of the ice cap at the North
Pole in the last decade. This story is told with satellite data from the changing extent of Arctic
sea ice since 1979.
The second story uses separate data sources for each of three variables, mean global surface
temperature, the sun’s energy output (solar irradiance) and the amount of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. These data are used to explore the relationship among the three variables. This story
uses graphs and regression to illustrate the following important insights. Solar irradiance alone
cannot explain observed temperature changes in recent decades while the fraction of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere explains a large percentage of temperature variability. More subtly,
unless the carbon dioxide variable is present in the model, solar irradiance does not even have apositive slope when regressed on temperature. For use in more advanced classes, two additionalvariables are suggested that may further improve the model. Hansen (2009, Chapter 6, pp. 90111) provides an authoritative explanation of the science behind this example in language
accessible to a general audience.

2

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

2. The Decline of Arctic Sea Ice
Since the late 1980’s when climate scientists began to raise concerns that increasing levels of
atmospheric CO2 would cause the earth to warm, they were very unsure about the rate of climatechange. It was estimated by many climate scientists such as Flato (2004, Figure 2) that asignificant portion of the Arctic Ocean would remain frozen all year round for most or all of thetwenty-first century. The erosion of this consensus as described by Stroeve, Holland, Meier,
Scambos, and Serreze (2007) and Hansen (2009, p. 167) began about five years ago. Using
scatter plots and regression, we can analyze the data ourselves to understand why the consensus
is changing. The data we will analyze is a time series of September Arctic sea ice extent from1979 until 2012.
What is September Arctic sea ice and why is it important? As far as we know, much of the Arctic
Ocean has been covered in floating sea ice year round for a very long time (the North Pole isnear the center of the Arctic Ocean). In A World without Ice, Henry Pollack (2010, p. 209) wrote,“The current rate of summer sea ice loss is exceeding all projections, and there is a very realpossibility that in only a few decades the Arctic Ocean may be ice free in summer, for the firsttime” in millions of years. Rapid melting of Arctic sea ice would be important as both asymptom and a cause of a changing climate. As a symptom, rapid melting would be a proverbial“canary in the coal mine.” While melting Arctic sea ice does not raise sea level because it isalready floating in the Arctic Ocean, it does send a powerful message that the climate ischanging. More importantly, melting Arctic sea ice causes further climate change. The summer
ice in the Arctic Ocean reflects sunlight. As the ice melts, the much darker sea water absorbs
sunlight. This feedback mechanism is understood as an important driver of climate change
throughout geologic history (Pollack, 2011, p. 43, p. 92). There are other possible effects of theloss of summer Arctic sea ice that are too complex to predict with any accuracy but could
nevertheless be very consequential. These include changes in ocean currents and atmosphericweather patterns as well as the possibility of releasing further greenhouse gases by accelerating
the melting of Arctic permafrost on land and on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (Shakhova, et al.,2010).
Since 1979, satellites have regularly measured the extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (IPCC
2007 – AR4, WG1, Chap 4.4.2). Computer programs can calculate the area or extent of the ice
coverage on a daily basis. These daily numbers for September are averaged to get the September
sea ice extent. September is the month when the ice stops melting each summer and reaches its
minimum extent. The following two images from the National Snow and Ice Data Center inFigure 1 are from September 1980 when the ice extent was 7,800,000 square kilometers and
September 2012 when the ice extent was 3,600,000 square kilometers. The pink boundary
depicts the median extent from 1980-2000.

3

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Figure 1: September Sea Ice Extent in the Arctic Ocean (in white)
Pink boundary depicts the median extent from 1980-2000
Images from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org)(Fetterer, et.al. 2002)

4

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

9

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (1,000,000 sq km)

8
7
6
5

.

4

.
.

3
2
1
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Year
Figure 2: Average September Sea Ice Extent 1979-2012

The average Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometers for each September from 1979
until 2012 is displayed above in Figure 2 (Fetterer, Knowles, Meier, and Savoie 2002). The
scatter plot shows that the September ice extent was between 7 and 8 million square kilometers
during the 1980s but began to decline below that range in the 1990s. For 5 of the last 6 years, it
has been below 5 million square kilometers. The regression slope of -0.0921 means that theestimated average rate of decline in September Arctic sea ice from 1979-2012 is 92,100 square
kilometers per year. For perspective, the state of Maine is 92,000 square kilometers so an area of
sea ice about the size of Maine is melting every year.
The beginning of this section stated that the late 20th century consensus was that most of the
Arctic Ocean would remain frozen year round another one hundred years but that consensus nolonger holds. Why is the consensus view of the melt rate of Arctic sea ice changing? Figure 3graphs the data that was available at the start of this century in 2001. Taken together, Figure 2
and Figure 3 show that the magnitude of the negative slope increased from 45,900 square
kilometers per year (regression from 1979-2001) to 92,100 square kilometers per year
(regression from 1979-2012). The estimated rate of decline of September Arctic sea ice has
doubled in eleven years.

5

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

9

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (1,000,000 sq km)

8
7
6
5

.

4

.
.

3
2
1
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year
Figure 3: Average September Sea Ice Extent 1979-2001

Helpful Hint: The author has found that students in an introductory class respond well to stories
that illustrate the need for alternative approaches like a quadratic regression. The story
illustrated by Table 1 begins in 2001. At that time, the data did not suggest to climate scientists
an accelerating trend in the melt rate of Arctic sea ice but recent data have changed thatperception. In addition to Table 1, the residual analysis in Figure 4 illustrates a more standard
regression diagnostic technique for detecting non-linearity.

6

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Table 1: Linear Regression Slopes Using Data from 1979 until the Last Year IndicatedFirst Year
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979

Last Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Intercept
98.3
108.5
112.0
115.6
125.2
126.8
149.5
162.2
163.4
168.8
175.4
190.1

Slope
‐0.0459‐0.0510‐0.0528‐0.0546‐0.0594‐0.0602‐0.0716‐0.0780‐0.0786‐0.0813‐0.0847‐0.09212
1.5

Residuals

1
0.5
0
‐0.5
‐1
‐1.5
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Year
Figure 4: Residual Analysis from Linear Regression in Figure 2

Table 1 shows the estimated slope and intercept from analogous regressions using data from1979 until the end of September for each of the last twelve years. Notice that the slope steepens
every year. The rate of decline of Arctic sea ice extent is consistently growing, suggesting theuse of a model that allows for a changing slope. The pattern of residuals displayed in Figure 4

7

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

reinforces that point. The residuals from the linear regression tend to be negative in early and lateyears, and positive in the middle years. A quadratic function of the form
is a simple function that allows for the slope to change at a constant rate. Its parameters, b0, b1
and b2, can be estimated from the data using regression as shown in Figure 5.

9

Arctic Sea Ice Extent (1,000,000 sq km)

8
7
6
5

.

4

.
.

3
2
1
0
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Year
Figure 5: Average September Sea Ice Extent 1979-2012 with Quadratic Regression Trend
The quadratic regression visually appears to be a better fit. Further, notice the increase in the percentageof the variance explained from R2 = 0.725 for the linear regression shown in Figure 2 to R2 = 0.822 for
the quadratic regression shown above in Figure 5. In Figure 6 the residuals from the quadratic regression
no longer have an obvious curvature when plotted against Year.

8

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

1.5

1

Residuals

0.5

0

‐0.5

‐1

‐1.5
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Year
Figure 6: Residual Analysis from the Quadratic Regression in Figure 5

What do the top climate scientists predict for the future of Arctic sea ice extent? The U.S. Navy
recently created a team of experts to answer exactly that question. In 2009, the commanding
officer of the U.S. Navy, Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations (CNO) established
Task Force Climate Change with a near-term focus on the Arctic and appointed Admiral David
Titley, the chief Oceanographer of the Navy to lead it. In his report, Admiral Titley (2010, p. 36)
wrote “Although estimates for when the Arctic will experience ice-free conditions in the summer
range from 2013 to 2060, the consensus of most models and researchers is that the Arctic will
experience ice-free conditions for a portion of the summer by 2030.” Echoing his subordinate, on
June 27, 2011, Admiral Roughead in a speech delivered at the Pentagon explained “Within 25
years the Arctic could become a profitable sea route from Asia to Europe” (Daniel 2011).
Additional lines of evidence, such as the declining thickness and volume of the Arctic sea ice are
the basis of the Navy’s opinion that the melt rate will continue to accelerate. Many climate
scientists agree. In his 2009 book Storms of my Grandchildren, NASA’s leading climate
researcher, Jim Hansen (2009, p. 168) wrote “There is a strong consensus among arctic
researchers that we are faced with a clear and imminent threat to summer sea ice in the Arctic”.
The debate among climate scientists continues because uncertainty about the exact mechanisms
for the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is high. Carmack and Melling’s (2011) paper “Warmthfrom the deep” is a good introduction to this debate. For a more complete discussion see “Arctic
Ocean Warming Contributes to Reduced Polar Ice Cap” by Polyakov, et al. (2010).

9

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

3. Temperature, Solar Intensity and CO2
The first example focused on describing the trend in a time series of Arctic sea ice extent.
Although the second example depends on time series data as well, the focus switches to analysisof the relationship between three variables: global surface temperature, solar irradiance and thefraction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. To be clear, this simple example is not intended as
proof that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are the primary cause of increasing global averagetemperature. The most basic purpose of this example is to encourage students to examine thevariation in these three variables from 1979-2010 to see that temperature and carbon dioxide
have both increased steadily while solar irradiance has oscillated between peaks and valleys inapproximately eleven-year cycles. Students should be taught that observational studies combinedwith these simple statistical techniques can constitute some evidence for relationships between
variables but will rarely, if ever, be sufficient as proof of causation. In this example, eachvariable is reported annually, eliminating seasonal effects.
In this article, carbon dioxide alone is used instead of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)
published by NOAA for three reasons. First, carbon dioxide is the most important greenhousegas by far, accounting for approximately 85% of the annual increase in the AGGI for the last
decade. Other constituent gases of the AGGI include methane, nitrous oxide, andchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Explanation of the AGGI and its constituents are available at
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/. Second, because the carbon dioxide component of the
AGGI and the overall AGGI have a 0.995 correlation over the time period in the example,
replacing carbon dioxide concentration with the AGGI would yield very similar results. Third,
explaining the AGGI to students would add another level of abstraction to the analysis. One goalof this example is to avoid unnecessary complexity. If, however, instructors believe theirstudents will benefit from a more realistic example, the AGGI can be used to replace carbon
dioxide concentration as an explanatory variable for temperature with very similar results to
those reported in this article.
Climate scientists have long predicted that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide andother greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide would increase average global
temperature because of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect follows from the following
facts. Carbon dioxide, like other greenhouse gases, is transparent to visible light which heats theearth. The warming earth emits thermal radiation back toward space but greenhouse gases,
unlike oxygen, have the property of absorbing some of that thermal radiation. The absorbed
thermal radiation warms the earth and its lower atmosphere. Over one hundred years ago theNobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius (1908) wrote that “doubling of the percentage ofcarbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°C”. Since
Arrhenius first wrote those words, the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
increased about 40% and mean global temperature has increased by almost 1°C.
In addition to increasing levels of greenhouse gases, what are other possible causes of increases
in observed global mean temperature? Other possibilities include changes in ocean circulation,
volcanic activity or a brighter sun. Could the variation in the intensity of sunlight alone explain
most of the increase in global temperature in recent years? Scaffetta and West (2008) wrote “We
estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average

10

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

temperature”. Others disagree. Duffy, Santer and Wigley (2009) wrote a detailed rebuttal to
Scaffetta and West’s (2008) paper. Which variable, CO2 or solar intensity, best explains theobserved variation in global temperature? Once again, the goal in this paper is to help students
examine the data themselves. Observations of the relevant variables since 1979 are readily
available to address this question directly. Graphs of global surface temperature, solar intensity
and atmospheric CO2 concentration follow. The graphs display the entire time series of datareported by the cited sources for each variable. With the use of proxies, such as sunspots forsolar intensity, any of these three series can be extended much further back in time. Rather thantrying to explain the validity of each proxy, analysis is confined to 1979-2010, the period forwhich reported data are available for all three variables. Standard data sources were used foreach of the three variables. Background information about each variable and its source are listedwith each graph.

3.1 Data for Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Solar Irradiance
The temperature data is the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index from the Goddard Institute ofSpace Studies (GISTEMP). It is reported in units of 1/100 of a degree centigrade increase above
the 1950-1980 mean and is often referred to as the global surface temperature anomaly. The
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is a laboratory in the NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center's Earth Sciences Division, which is part of Goddard Space Flight Center's Sciencesand Exploration Directorate. For more details about the time series see the GISTEMP home page
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. The series depicted in Figure 7 (in blue) was downloaded on
July 16, 2012 from this table: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.
Also presented is the ten year lagged moving average for year T (in red), calculated by taking themean of the ten previous years inclusive of year T, the mean of GISTEMP for years T-9, T-8, …
, T-1, T.

11

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

80

GISTEMP in Centigrade/100

60
40
20
0
‐20
‐40
‐60
1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Year
Figure 7: GISTEMP - Global Surface Temperature Anomaly (change from 1950-1980 average), annual
GISTEMP is in blue (1880-2010), the ten year lagged moving average of GISTEMP is in red.

Helpful Hint: This noisy data set is a good example of a time series graph that is easily
displayed and understood with a moving average, a simple technique that students use.
The CO2 data graphed in Figure 8 are from The Earth System Research Laboratory of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Specifically, these CO2 data are arecord of annual mean atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, andconstitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentration. This remote location
at high altitude in Hawaii was chosen because it is relatively unaffected by any local emissions
and so is representative of the global concentration of a well-mixed gas like CO2.Theseobservations were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography inMarch of 1958 at a NOAA facility and are often referred to as the Keeling Curve. Further details
about these data are available at this webpage: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. Data
are reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided
by the number of molecules of dry air multiplied by one million (ppm). The data in Figure 8
were downloaded on July 16, 2012 from this webpage:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt.

12

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

400

CO2 in Parts per Million

390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year
Figure 8: Annual atmospheric CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) 1959-2010

The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) data are from the PMOD/WRC (Physikalisch-Meteorologisches
Observatorium Davos/World Radiation Center) in Davos, Switzerland. The TSI satellite data in
Figure 9 come from their VIRGO Experiment on the cooperative ESA/NASA Mission SoHO.
The PMOD is funded by the Swiss government as a service to the world-wide meteorologicalcommunity and other parties interested in solar radiation measurements. Further details about
these data are available at this webpage:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant. TSI is reported inWatts/Square meter, the amount of solar energy transmitted through each square meter of spaceprior to entry in the earth’s atmosphere as measured by satellites since 1979. The sinusoidal
pattern with an approximately decadal periodicity has been observed in sunspot data over many
centuries. The daily TSI data were downloaded on July 16, 2012 from the following webpage:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/. The daily TSI data were thenaveraged for each year. To obtain updated daily TSI data, access the following webpage andchoose the most recent file with extension *.dat:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/.

13

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

1366.6

TSI - Watts/sq meter

1366.41366.2
1366
1365.81365.61365.41365.2
1365
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995
Year

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 9: Annual Average TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) 1979-2010

Helpful Hint: This hint is for readers who would like additional background on this TSI
data. The generally accepted absolute level of TSI is changing with better technology.
NASA’s SORCE spacecraft was launched in 2003 to provide more precise measurementsof TSI. From the 2004-2010 daily measurements, the average TSI was 1365.42 W/m2 for
PMOD and 1360.96 W/m2 for the newer SORCE project (Kopp and Laen 2011) for an
absolute average daily difference of 4.46 W/m2. (SORCE also provides much better
information about variation within the spectrum of sunlight. Research on the implicationsof this newly understood spectral variation is ongoing.) While this is a large difference
relative to the variation of TSI over time, the difference between the two is stable. There
was a 0.97 correlation between the daily TSI readings for these two projects. The
estimated slope of temperature versus TSI is very similar for 2004-2010 so the much
longer PMOD data were used.
Figure 9 reveals the periodic variability in TSI. Successive peaks and valleys in TSI seem tosuggest a very slight downward drift over this time period, but there is no clear trend. In contrast,
the time series plot of CO2 in Figure 8 shows a very steady increase with little variability. The
graph of temperature in Figure 7 over the same time period was more variable but still steadily
increasing as the ten-year moving average revealed. This suggests that TSI alone is unlikely to
explain the variation in GISTEMP. To explore the relationships among these three variables inmore detail, the next section uses graphs, sample correlations and a multiple regression with
GISTEMP as the dependent variable to be explained by atmospheric CO2 concentration andTotal Solar Irradiance.

3.2 Using CO2 and TSI to explain changes in GISTEMPTo examine if CO2 or TSI is more useful in explaining changes in temperature during thisperiod, we first graph GISTEMP against each variable separately in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
14

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

The graph and sample correlation (r = 0.857) of CO2 versus GISTEMP in Figure 10 show thatyears with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are clearly associated withhigher global surface temperature. On the other hand, Figure 11 shows very little association of
TSI with GISTEMP in recent decades. The negative sample correlation of -0.351 is especiallyproblematic as a brighter sun should be associated with a warmer earth. Carefully controlling formany other sources of variation, Camp and Tung (2007) reported a correlation of 0.64 between
surface temperature and TSI with an associated p-value of 0.002. As will be made clear in thenext paragraph, this misleading negative correlation in our analysis will turn positive after
correction for the effect of rising levels of CO2. Also, TSI is plotted against CO2 in Figure 12 togive a complete scatterplot matrix of the three variables in Section 3. Possible issues related tocollinearity suggested by the sample correlation of -0.543 between TSI and CO2 will be
discussed in a later paragraph on regression diagnostics.
70

GISTEMP (1/100 C)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
330.00340.00350.00360.00370.00380.00390.00400.00CO2 (ppm)
Figure 10: Temperature vs. CO2 1979-2010
Sample correlation r = 0.857

15

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

70

GISTEMP (1/100 C)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1365.00

1365.201365.40

1365.60

1365.80

1366.00

1366.20

1366.40

1366.60

390

400

Total Solar Irradiance (W/m2)
Figure 11: Temperature vs. Total Solar Irradiance1979-2010
Sample correlation r = -0.351

Total Solar Irradiance (W/m2)

1366.6
1366.41366.2
1366
1365.81365.61365.41365.2
1365
330

340

350

360

370

380

CO2 (ppm)
Figure 12: Total Solar Irradiance vs CO2 1979-2010
Sample correlation r = -0.543

Table 2 shows the output of a multiple regression that includes both TSI and CO2 to explain
16

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

GISTEMP. When both CO2 and TSI are included, the model accounts for R2 = 0.764 of thevariability in GISTEMP. The slope for CO2 is 1.15°C per 100 ppm of CO2, given that TSI isalready in the model. This slope estimate means that over the time period of the data, the averageincrease in GISTEMP has been 1.15°C for each 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere. The
p-value shows that the relationship between C O2 and GISTEMP is strong and not likely due tochance. The slope for TSI versus GISTEMP is positive 8.05 x 1/100°C per W/m2, given that
CO2 is in the model. This agrees with the physical science expectation that increasing TSI should
increase GISTEMP. As the two-sided p-value of 0.104 is not small, these data provide
insufficient evidence to exclude random variation as the source of the observed positive value forthe slope. Still, this example illustrates the important insight that unless the carbon dioxide
variable is present in the model, the positive effect of increasing temperature for increasing solar
irradiance cannot even be detected. Accordingly, this example serves to illustrate the meaning of
the slope coefficients in a multiple regression.
Table 2: Regression using both TSI and CO2 to explain GISTEMP

Regression Statistics
R SquareAdjusted R Square
Residual Standard
Error
Observations

0.764
0.748
9.204
32

ANOVA
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
CO2
Solar Irradiance

df
2
29
31

SS
7955.162456.55
10411.72

MS
3977.58
84.71

F
46.96

Estimated
Coefficients

Standard Errorof EstimatedCoefficientst StatTwo‐sided
P‐value‐11372.6
1.147118.047466582.50.129
4.801‐1.728
8.926
1.676

0.095
8.13E‐100.104

Significance F
8.05E‐10

GISTEMP = -11373 + 8.05 TSI + 1.15 CO2 + Error

Helpful Hint: This example can be used to explain to students how residuals can suggest
additional sources of variation. The largest residual in magnitude -17.2 (standardized
residual of -1.93) is from 1992 in the aftermath of the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in thePhilippines. As predicted at the time, the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century
caused significant cooling around the world. The second largest magnitude negative
residual is -15.3 (standardized residual of -1.72) from 1993 as the effect of the eruption
17

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

persisted. This suggests that the addition of a variable that measures the impact of
volcanic eruptions on the atmosphere might improve the performance of this multiple
regression. For more detail, see the Alternative Application below.
Figures 13-15 are residual plots for the multiple regression model shown in Table 2 and can beused as appropriate regression diagnostics for an introductory class in statistics. Figure 13 is a
simple histogram showing the distribution of the residuals for the multiple regression model
displayed in Table 2. As in all ordinary least squares regressions, the mean of the residuals iszero. The residual standard error from Table 2 is 9.204. From the five-number summary below
Figure 13, the residual IQR = 12.74. The residual distribution in Figure 13 has an IQR =12.74/9.2 = 1.385 standard deviations. For comparison, the IQR of the normal distribution is1.35 standard deviations and the IQR of the continuous uniform is 1.73 standard deviations.
(Note that for the uniform, standard deviation = range/√12 and IQR = range/2.) Although theresidual distribution in Figure 13 shows some asymmetry, half of the residuals are below zero,half above zero. The upper and lower quartiles are approximately equidistant from the zero mean
as are the minimum and maximum. There is almost no skew visible in the Figure 13 histogram.
No residual is greater than 2 standard deviations from the mean. Based on these observations
from Figure 13, the distribution of residuals appears to be roughly normal. Figure 14 is a timeseries plot of the residuals. It does not show any obvious serial dependence over time. If theassumption of independent residuals is more fully addressed in an introductory statistics course,
the Durbin-Watson statistic D can be used in time series examples such as this one. For the
residuals from the model in Table 2, D= 1.94, near the expected value of E(D) = 2 when theunderlying distribution is independent. This supports the visual finding from Figure 14 of noserial dependence. Figure 15 is a graph of the residuals as a function of predicted GISTEMP. It is
intended to address possible violation of the assumption of constant variance across predictors ina multiple regression model. It reveals no obvious pattern to the variance of the residuals such asa trumpet or reverse trumpet. Although not included in this paper, the two scatterplots of theresiduals vs. each independent variable, CO2 and TSI, showed no pattern indicating that theconstant variance assumption has been violated.
From Figure 12, the correlation between the two independent variables TSI and CO2 is -0.543.
This correlation can be used to determine the effect of collinearity on the precision of the slope
estimates. According to Stine and Foster (2011, p. 612), an introductory statistics text with an
insightful treatment of regression, “The variance inflation factor (VIF) quantifies the amount of
unique variation in each explanatory variable and uses this to summarize the effect ofcollinearity.” In this regression model with only two independent variables, the effect ofcollinearity can easily be summarized by calculating VIF from the correlation between TSI and
CO2: VIF = 1/(1 - r2) = 1.42 where r = -0.543 is the correlation. The square root of the VIF is
1.19 meaning that the standard error of the coefficients for TSI and CO2 are increased by a factorof 1.19 from the value they would have had if TSI and CO2 were uncorrelated. Stine and Foster(2011, p. 613) recommend “Generally, finding VIF > 5 or 10 suggests our variables are highly
redundant and that the partial slopes will be difficult to interpret.” With a VIF of 1.42, potential
concerns about collinearity in this model give no reason to exclude one of the two variables.

18

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)8
7

Frequency

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
below (‐20,‐15) (‐15,‐10) (‐10,‐5)‐20(‐5,0)(0,5)(5,10)(10,15)(15,20)

2005

2010

above
20

GISTEMP Residuals (1/100 C)
Figure 13: Distribution of Residuals
Min:-17.21 Q1:-6.47 Median:0.72 Q3:6.27 Max:16.98

20

GISTEMP Residuals (1/100 C)

15
10
5
0
‐5
‐10
‐15
‐20
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2015

Year
Figure 14: Time Series Residual Plot

19

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

GISTEMP Residuals (1/100 C)

20
15
10
5
0
‐5
‐10
‐15
‐20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Predicted GISTEMP (1/100 C)
Figure 15: Scatterplot of Residuals vs. Predicted GISTEMP

Alternative Application: For more advanced classes, include two additional explanatory
variables for the impact of volcanic activity on the atmosphere and the impact of the El
Nino/La Nina phenomenon (El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO Index). For the sametime period 1979-2010, including these two explanatory variables with TSI and CO2
decreases the two-tailed p-value for TSI to 0.0325 and increases R2 to 0.845. Both newvariables have p-values below 0.01. This four variable model has remarkable
explanatory power for such a complex system as the one that determines global surface
temperature. Find the explanation of the volcanic activity variable on thislink:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/mloapt.html. Find the data of the volcanic
activity variable on this link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.html. Find the
explanation and data for the ENSO index on this link:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.sht
ml .
The ENSO index operates on climate with approximately a three month lag. The p-values
and R2 reported here were based on lagging the ENSO Index three months.

4. Additional Sources of Data and other Teaching Material
This paper has used two detailed examples to illustrate how data from climate science can be aneffective teaching tool for introductory statistics classes. Data sources cited included National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Goddard Institute of Space Studies, World Radiation
Center and National Snow and Ice Data Center. A wealth of additional well-documented climate
data is readily available. An excellent catalogue of data sources can be found at the
RealClimate.org website: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. NASA’s Global
20

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Change Master Directory is available at http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/. NOAA’s National Climate
Data Center maintains an extensive data directory available at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Yet another good climate data source is the Data Guide
maintained by the National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate athttps://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/.
In addition to data, some research papers in climate science geared to a wider audience arealmost ready-made for use in introductory statistics. For instance, see the recent publication
Hansen, Sato, and Ruedy (2012) at NASA. Hansen and his colleagues use graphs to show how
the distribution of temperature extremes around the world has evolved over the last few decades.
With graphs and summary statistics, they carefully explain that both the average and thevariability of global temperature have increased. Here is a quote from the Author Summary ofHansen, Sato and Ruedy (2012). “We illustrate variability of seasonal temperature in units ofstandard deviation (σ), including comparison with the normal distribution (“bell curve”) that thelay public may appreciate. The probability distribution (frequency of occurrence) of local
summer-mean temperature anomalies was close to the normal distribution in the 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s in both hemispheres. However, in each subsequent decade the distribution shifted
toward more positive anomalies, with the positive tail (hot outliers) of the distribution shifting
the most.” This paper illustrates well how teachers of introductory statistics can choose frommany interesting examples as climate scientists strive to make their work more accessible.

5. Conclusion
Weather is the temperature, precipitation, atmospheric pressure and wind speed at one locationon the earth at one point in time. Climate is the distribution of these variables for an entire region
across time. While students can understand weather with no knowledge of statistics, climate isinherently a statistical concept. Because climate change is a topic of interest for many students
today, teachers of introductory statistics can use the wealth of available climate data to motivate
students to see that statistics can help them better understand their world.
This paper presents two examples of data sets from climate science that can be understood bystudents in an introductory statistics course. The first shows how the trend in Arctic sea ice data
can be well-represented with a quadratic regression. This example has been used successfully by
the author in introductory statistics for undergraduate business majors and MBAs for the past
three years. The second example shows that solar irradiance alone does not explain global
surface temperature change over the last three decades but the increasing atmosphericconcentration of CO2 does explain three-fourths of the variability in temperature. The second
example also shows that the sign of slope of temperature versus solar irradiance agrees with the
known physical relationship between the two variables only when atmospheric CO2
concentration is also included in the model. This example is a little more advanced but has beenwell-received in MBA level statistics classes. For undergraduates, it can be used omitting themultiple regression with both explanatory variables. Of course this paper only brushes thesurface using a few climate data sets. Other climate data sources were listed so that statistics
teachers can construct other such examples.

21

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Appendix: Data
Sea Ice
Since 1979, satellites have continuously measured the extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Daily numbers are averaged to get the monthly sea ice extent for each month.
This Sea Ice Data includes 34 observations with 2 variables.
Data abstract: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n1/witt/sea_ice_data_info.txt
Data, available as a tab delimited text file:
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n1/witt/sea_ice_data.txt
CO2This data series from 1979-2010 includes the annual global mean surface temperature (Temp) andtwo possible explanatory variables: annual mean intensity of sunlight incoming to the earth's
atmosphere (Solar Irradiance) and the annual average fraction of CO2 contained in the earth's
atmosphere (CO2).
This CO2 Data includes 32 observations with 4 variables.
Data abstract: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n1/witt/temp_co2_data_info.txt
Data, available as a tab delimited text file:
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n1/witt/temp_co2_data.txt

References
Arrhenius, S. (1908), Worlds in the Making, English translation, New York, NY: Harper andBrothers.
ACUPCC (2007), American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, (established2007). Available at http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/index.php
Camp, C. and Tung, K. (2007), “Surface Warming by the Solar Cycle as Revealed by the
Composite Mean Difference Projection,” Geophysical Research Letters 24, July 18, 2007:
L14703.
Carmack, E., and Melling, H. (2011), “Warmth from the deep,” Nature Geosciences, 4.
Available at www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Daniel, L. (2011), “Defense Department, Services Monitor Arctic Melting”, American Forces
Press Service (June 27, 2011). Available at
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64474

22

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Duffy, P., Santer, B. and Wigley, T. (2009), “Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century
warming,” Physics Today, 62, 48-49.
Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, Meier, W., and Savoie, M. (2002, updated 2009). Sea Ice Index.
Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://nsidc.org/
Flato, G.M., and Participating CMIP Modeling Groups, (2004), “Sea-ice and its response to CO2
forcing as simulated by global climate change studies,” Climate Dynamics, 23, 220–241.
Hansen, J. (2009), Storms of my Grandchildren, New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, and R. Ruedy, (2012), “Perception of Climate Change,” Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci., 109, 14726-14727, E2415-E2423, doi:10.1073/pnas.1205276109.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, (2007), Working Group
1. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Kopp, G. and Laen, J. L. (2011), “A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence andClimate Significance,”Geophysical Research Letters 38, article no. L01706.
Pollack, H. (2010), A World Without Ice, New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Polyakov, I., Timokhovl, L., Alexeev, V., Bacon, S., Dmitrenko, I., Fortier, L., Frolov,I.,
Gascard, J., Hansen, E., Ivanov, V., Laxon, S., Mauritzen, C., Perovich, D., Shimada, K.,
Simmons, H., Sokolov, V., Steele, and M., Toole, J., (2010), “Arctic Ocean Warming
Contributes to Reduced Polar Ice Cap,” Journal of Physical Oceanography, December 2010,
doi:10.1175/2010JPO4339.1.
Scafetta, N., and West, B. (2008), “Is climate sensitive to solar variability?,” Physics Today, 61(3), 50.
Shakhova, N., Semiletov, I, Salyuk, A., Yusupov, V., Kosmach, D., and Gustafsson, O. (2010),“Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic
Shelf,” Science, 327(5970), 1246-1250, DOI: 10.1126/science.1182221.
Stine, R. and Foster, D. (2011), Statistics for Business, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Stroeve, J., Holland, M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., and Serreze, M. (2007), “Arctic sea Ice
Decline: Faster than Forecast,” Geophysical Research Letters 34: article no. L09501.
Titley, D, and St. John, C. (2010), “Arctic Security Considerations and the U.S. Navy’s
Roadmap for the Arctic,” Naval War College Review, 63(2). Available at
http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e0734d9a-386e-4a2c-ba9d-86e7b290c57f/Arctic-SecurityConsiderations-and-the-U-S--navy-s

23

Journal of Statistics Education, Volume 21, Number 1 (2013)

Dr. Gary Witt
(215) 204-8160
Fox School of Business, Temple University
Speakman Hall, Rm 334
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Email: gary.witt@temple.edu

Volume 21 (2013) | Archive | Index | Data Archive | Resources | Editorial Board | Guidelines for
Authors | Guidelines for Data Contributors | Guidelines for Readers/Data Users | Home Page |Contact JSE | ASA Publications

24