Americans believe climate change connected to location and local weather
Researchers found local experiences and temperatures drive belief or non-belief in climate change
A new study finds local weather may play an important role in Americans’ belief in climate change. The study, published on Monday, found that Americans’ belief that the earth is warming is related to the frequency of weather-related events they experience, suggesting that local changes in their climate influence their acceptance of this worldwide phenomenon.
“One of the greatest challenges to communicating scientific findings about climate change is the cognitive disconnect between local and global events,” said Michael Mann, associate professor of geography at George Washington University and co-author of the paper. “It is easy to assume that what you experience at home must be happening elsewhere.”
The researchers found that Americans who experience more record highs than lows in temperature are more likely to believe the earth is warming. Conversely, Americans who live in areas that have experienced record low temperatures, such as southern portions of Ohio and the Mississippi River basins, are more skeptical that the earth is warming.
The study notes that part of this dichotomy may be because of the early terminology used to describe climate change that suggested the earth was simply warming – not changing in innumerable but measurable ways. This might have led residents living in areas that experienced an unusually cold winter to doubt that climate change is occurring.
“Who do Americans trust about climate change; scientists or themselves?” said Robert Kaufmann, professor in the department of geography and the Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Boston University and lead author of the paper. “For many Americans, the answer seems to be themselves.”
The researchers also found that a recent period of lower-than-average temperatures offset the effect of a long warming period, further supporting their findings that people’s belief in climate change is local and experiential.
The scientists note the importance of differentiating between weather, the temperatures of a relatively short period of time such as a season, and climate, the average temperatures over a period of 25 or 30 years. Emphasizing the difference between weather and climate may help scientists more effectively communicate about climate change.
The paper, “The Spatial Heterogeneity of Climate Change: An Experiential Basis for Skepticism,” was published in Proceedings National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/12/13/1607032113.abstract
###
Abstract
We postulate that skepticism about climate change is partially caused by the spatial heterogeneity of climate change, which exposes experiential learners to climate heuristics that differ from the global average. This hypothesis is tested by formalizing an index that measures local changes in climate using station data and comparing this index with survey-based model estimates of county-level opinion about whether global warming is happening. Results indicate that more stations exhibit cooling and warming than predicted by random chance and that spatial variations in these changes can account for spatial variations in the percentage of the population that believes that “global warming is happening.” This effect is diminished in areas that have experienced more record low temperatures than record highs since 2005. Together, these results suggest that skepticism about climate change is driven partially by personal experiences; an accurate heuristic for local changes in climate identifies obstacles to communicating ongoing changes in climate to the public and how these communications might be improved.
Significance
We develop a simple heuristic to measure local changes in climate based on the timing of record high and low temperatures. The metric shows local cooling and warming in the United States and captures two aspects of experiential learning that influence how the public perceives a change in climate: recency weighting and an emphasis on extreme events. We find that skepticism about whether the Earth is warming is greater in areas exhibiting cooling relative to areas that have warmed and that recent cooling can offset historical warming. This experiential basis for skepticism of climate change identifies obstacles to communicating ongoing changes in climate to the public and how these communications might be improved.
Anthony comments:
So I’ve read the study, and it’s got one clear problem that I can see, which is obvious from their map – they didn’t account for local media exposure and political bias. Below is a map of how counties voted in the 2012 election, compared to Mann’s climate belief system map. Reds are right leaning (Republican), Blues are left leaning (Democratic). I’ve used this map, because it’s closer to the timeframe of the polling data from Mann’s study, IMO.
If you compare the grey areas, where belief in global warming due to weather events is high, you’ll note an obvious pattern: The darkest areas in Mann’s map match many of the bluest areas of the voting map. Places like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Miami, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Washington, DC and Chicago all have strong correlations with voting records.
This suggests that Mann’s study is pure bunk, and is more related to political leanings and media outlets for those areas pushing the AGW meme, than it has to do with weather.
Another Manntastic fantastic claim, shot to hell.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: Well, I’ve made a mistake. The Michael Mann listed as author of the paper is not the Michael E. Mann, of Penn State, but a person of the same first and last names of George Washington University. The headline and last sentence have been corrected to fix that misidentification. (h/t to Roman M in comments) -Anthony
Anthony, since “climate crisis,” my choice for what is being pushed, IS political, not science, it follows that political ideology would match. If anything, Mann’s paper is proof that its a political issue, not a science issue. He just misinterpreted his own evidence – as usual.
Now, it is to be primarily psychological. http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/FINAL%20Social%20mobilization-Sussman%20Gifford.pdf is a new good example.
Also, in education which I cover, K-12 relies on virtual reality to alter the mental images of how physical reality works and what constitutes cause and effect. They have even developed a term-Guiding Fictions- to cover things that are not true but it is useful to have people believe anyway.
Motivating desired behaviors is always the focus.
Robin,
It’s called indoctrination and is especially pernicious in the California school system. I’ve spoken to many millennials about this and it’s absolutely clear that our education system has warped their developing minds to believe what they are told about climate science by reinforcing catastrophic claims with fear mongering while only mentioning skeptics and their science in a denigrating manner, if at all. No longer are students taught to apply due diligence to both sides of an argument and think for themselves. Nearly every one of them points to one of the various hockey stick temperature plots as ‘proof’ and not one of them understands the nefarious data manipulations from which the hockey sticks emerged nor are they aware of data that does not result in hockey sticks. They are simply manipulated to believe that these plots represent reality which to a large extent is the result of progressivism dumbing down the population.
Robin,
I skimmed through that publication. It would be quite amusing if it wasn’t so deeply disturbing. They accept as an epistemological truth the premise of catastrophic man-made global warming and assume that all that is needed is to “encourage action on climate change” through “social mobilization.” The whole focus is on targeting, behavior modification theories and techniques, how to fool most of the people most of the time, etc., Never once is there the least hint that they might be wrong.
At least they recommend working with experts, but wait…
Talk about grandiose delusions of narcissism, it’s not the utilities, government regulators (and by extension, others in other related disciplines) who are the experts, it’s the social scientists.
Mann’s paper above, greatly lowering George Washington University’s esteem, is anpother classic case of correlation is not causation.
They did not connect nor prove their claim; Mann simply compiled two realms of data and went “Voila, I have proved my confirmation bias!”
The fool.
The researchers found that Americans who experience more record highs than lows in temperature are more likely to believe the earth is warming
===
..and since record highs have been declining for decades
Anthony’s right though…it’s political
…either that, or it’s something in their water
they didn’t account for local media exposure and political bias…
===
Or universities, liberal bias, sanctuary cities, chicken farms, etc…
The academics who have escaped the Ivory Tower to ruin society with their harebrained theories need to be corralled, shoved back in the Tower, and locked in for the rest of their academic career. Let them convince each other how smart they are, but don’t let them do any more damage.
+1 Phil
Looking at Mann’s map…it could just as well be a map of sanctuary cities and counties
“We postulate that skepticism about climate change is partially caused by the spatial heterogeneity of climate change, which exposes experiential learners to climate heuristics that differ from the global average.”
I postulate that skepticism about climate change is totally caused by the total inability and unwillingness of CAGW alarmists to back up their claims in a scientific manner, intead resorting to fear, adjusted data, faulty computer models, and totally unsubstantiated claims.
+ 1.
It would be interesting to do a similar study to see if the populace actually believe the Mannian “science” any more or the more honest science we see here.
The correlation between those two maps is surreal – almost deplorable!
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/merriam-webster-2016-word-of-year-232806
Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?
Not a new finding – something similar found the same thing in 2013.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n2/full/nclimate2093.html?message-global=remove
“Climate change judgements can depend on whether today seems warmer or colder than usual, termed the local warming effect. Although previous research has demonstrated that this effect occurs, studies have yet to explain why or how temperature abnormalities influence global warming attitudes. A better understanding of the underlying psychology of this effect can help explain the public’s reaction to climate change and inform approaches used to communicate the phenomenon. Across five studies, we find evidence of attribute substitution, whereby individuals use less relevant but available information (for example, today’s temperature) in place of more diagnostic but less accessible information (for example, global climate change patterns) when making judgements. Moreover, we rule out alternative hypotheses involving climate change labelling and lay mental models. Ultimately, we show that present temperature abnormalities are given undue weight and lead to an overestimation of the frequency of similar past events, thereby increasing belief in and concern for global warming.”
Keeping it simple. When a predicted hot spell (that doesn’t end up being very unusual) is promoted as evidence of catastrophic global warming to come, the kiddies get scared. When the adults get actual record breaking cold and it is ignored by the media or attributed to global warming, the adults get suspicious.
Assumptions and confirmation bias.
As before, nothing was actually proven, assumed only.
Though, the evidence over time strongly implies that CAGW believers are astoundingly gullible. All it takes are claims from alleged authorities, and they swoon over bad research in droves.
Peer review between best buddies only.
The most recent decade would be freshest in peoples minds.
And according to the USCRN, there has been NO warming in the USA in the past 10-11 years.
(And this is the best un-adjusted data in the world)
Pressure campaigns to get local TV forecasters to pin alarmist labels on “extreme weather” such as Climate Central’s “TV Mets” program to “leverage the power of trusted messengers” works in subtle ways. Our local news in Vancouver calls “average” temps “normal” whereby anything not dead on average is “abnormal” hence “scary”. Temperatures above 20C on regional maps shown in molten red, spread the message.
When local conditions in Vancouver fail to measure up, imported footage of Australian bushfires is regularly brought in. This year’s high rainfalls in Australia have created a most inconvenient drought drought.
Read the label before taking: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”
“This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. (Naomi Oreskes) is a Guest Editor invited by the Editorial Board.”
“Edited by Naomi Oreskes……and accepted by Editorial Board Member Hans J. Schellnhuber”
Nice catch, Betapug. Its even worse. PNAS has Oreskes still at U. Cal. She moved to Harvard University in 2013, the year I stopped contributing to my alma mater in consequence. So much for the reliability of PNAS.
ristvan,
Hah, the infamous Schellnhuber, the climatomagician who pulled the apocalyptic 2°C limit out of his *ss the way Bullwinkle pulls squirrels out of his hat.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
ristvan,
Whoops, sorry about that. looks like I need me some good, social behavior modification. /s
It occurs to me is that UHI is greatest in urban areas where the belief in global warming is greatest. We might have a spurious correlation going here.
Well Urban Heat Islands tend to prefer to be in Urban areas, where it tends to be warmer.
Why go to where it is colder to get warm.
g
Mann-daciously Mann-tastic Mann-ure.
Not the same Mann you may think it is…
…said Michael Mann, associate professor of geography at George Washington University and co-author of the paper
It’s one thing to share such a narrow scientific understanding…but to share a similar name as well? Why is a geography professor doing social science?
sort of like having the same name as Germany’s WW2 dictator. Best to get a legal name change.
How embarassingly awful to have the same name.
Aphan at 11:19
At the university level geography is considered a “spatial” subject in contrast to non-university people who think geography deals with the physical land. Thus, gender study in urban versus rural areas fits. Likewise, lending by banks in areas of different ethnic patterns. It is “space” and “patterns” and linkages. Years ago there was an interest in “migration streams.” One such helps explain why there are many “old time fiddlers” and their music in Idaho and Washington States. A friend from Idaho, a left handed playing fiddler, will be back east this week playing at, I think, tree lighting and other celebrations.
This from her hometown newspaper, the Idaho Prress-Tribune.
Katrina Nicolayeff /strong>
Sorry for the odd code, but it works.
Here is a more recent one:
Merry Christmas
I guess the feminists are right, and Mannsplaining is a bad thing…
So a study had to be done to determine that recent weather events influence a person’s view on climate change? OK.
I think that all the grant money went to ensuring that glaciology is gender-balanced.
Or something.
Michael Mann is only an associate professor of geography?? I thought he at least had a science background
“We postulate that skepticism about climate change is partially caused by…”
Or maybe it’s related to the calibration or ideology of one’s bullshit detector.
I thought that Mann is a climastrologer, not a psychologist (the part that is pseudo science). Apparently in pseudo sciences ‘experts’ in one are experts in all of them. No surprise that Cook is an ‘expert’ in climastrology and Mann in psychology,
“This is not the Michael Mann you are looking for.”
Michael LMann – George Washington University
Michael E, Mann – State Penn; er, I mean Penn State
As if one Mann in the ‘science’ would not be enough 🙂
Gee wizz – Mann is an “ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY” ??!!!
At George Washington University, a place I have never associated with the
study of geology before. I didn’t even realize they taught any geology courses
over there, in Northwest Wash D.C.
At any rate, Mann’s study is an perfect example of his incompetence with respect to simple scientific (natural, not controlled) experimentation. One can hardly avoid the obvious (which Mann has managed to do) : that belief in global warming is very closely tied to political beliefs. Failure to recognize potential or actual independent variables in a natural experiment , where causation can be demonstrated more reliably, is the primary reason that natural experiments are inferior methods of getting at causal relationships, and often lead to false, disastrous conclusions. Natural experiments heavily depend upon excellent knowledge of the area in question, as to potential causal relationships, and even this doesn’t guarantee that variables unknown/unmeasured aren’t having significant effects (in this case political beliefs).
Any undergraduate science student of experimentation would get a failing grade if they had designed a study like this one by Mann. He is simply incompetent. I guess this sorta makes it offical.
Weather is perceptible… climate is… something… I think…
Andrew
Looks like a classic example of groupthink bias. People feel better about expressing something when they’re comfortable their peers won’t react skeptically. That comfort results in increased participation. Large population centers are also larger pools from which groupthink can spring.
Has anyone done a numerical cross correlation analysis between the politics and belief in a CO2 caused catastrophe? How about an anomaly plot where red regions that believe in the broken science and blue regions that dispute it are plotted? Comparing the two, the first would be nearly complete correlation coverage of the US while the second would some scattered small dots of anti-correlation. Apply a t-test and the certainty of political bias will be undeniable.
“The study notes that part of this dichotomy may be because of the early terminology used to describe climate change that suggested the earth was simply warming”
As far as i know, then the first effect of CO2 is warming, and all the climate change stuff should be caused by that warming.
Not the same MIchael Mann. Here is the one at GW.
https://geography.columbian.gwu.edu/michael-mann
Hey, kind of a warped, “No, I am Spartacus!” moment.
PiperPaul, I read that wrong, but I like what I thought it said better…. “No, I am Smarticus!” lol
They all look alike to me.
Balding bearded lefties.
This Mann looks like the
State PenPenn State Mann with less baby fat.Yes, the same look as Gavin Schmidt. Out of the same mold (or is that mould?)
Local climate is all that matters to local biota — including humans .
Belief in CAGW does seem to follow politics in general, which makes a great deal of sense as the whole field is political not scientific.
Low-information citizens tend to make uninformed decisions. Hmmmm….go figure….
“Low-information is as low-information does…”
And Pope Francis is a CAGW advocate so religion may also be a factor.
I’ll need several $M of funding to do an extensive study of CAGW belief v. RCC population.
I may need additional funding for intensive research in exotic venues where religion and local customs merge into ambiguous hedonism. Not yet certain on how to control the study; but, trust me, I’ll work something out.
EVOE!!!
Didn’t this all start when this correlation was demonstrated by Jim Hanson and Senator Wirth scheduled their hearing on the warmest day of the year and shuting down the air conditioning?
So its definitely not new info and it says more about gullibility and deceit than climate.