URI researcher: Weather fluctuations cause people to seek information on climate change
Media Contact: Todd McLeish, 
401-874-7892
Results vary by political ideology, education levels
KINGSTON, R.I. – July 16, 2014 – A University of Rhode Island researcher analyzed Internet search trends and weather patterns and has concluded that people across the United States seek information about climate change when they experience unusual or severe weather events in their area. But findings differed based on political ideology and education levels.
“When local weather conditions are consistent with the predictions of climate change – above average heat, drought or warmer winters, for instance – then people go online and type in ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ to learn more,” said Corey Lang, URI assistant professor of environmental economics. “It’s a confirmation that people are connecting weather anomalies to climate change.”
His results will be published this week in the journal Climatic Change.
Lang used Google Trends to collect data on how often people in 205 media markets searched the Internet for terms like “climate change” and “global warming” from January 2004 to May 2013. While search activity increased during weather fluctuations consistent with climate change predictions, it also increased in some areas during weather events inconsistent with climate science.
“One possibility is that when weather is inconsistent with climate change, climate science deniers go online in higher numbers seeking to confirm their prior beliefs,” Lang said. “It’s also possible that weather anomalies of any kind spark people to think about weather and climate. We can only speculate about their reasons.”
When Lang compared search data in regions of the country with differing political views and education levels, his results suggest that some groups may see climate change differently. For example, Democratic leaning regions and those with higher education levels were more likely to seek information about climate change when average summer temperatures were above normal, whereas those in Republican and less educated areas sought climate change information when they experienced extreme heat.
“When it’s just a warmer than usual month, more Democratic and well educated areas are picking up on that signal, but it’s a spike in temperature over one or more days that Republican and less-educated areas are keying in to climate change,” Lang said. “It may suggest that different types of people have different perceptions of what kind of weather defines climate change.”
The URI economist said that it is difficult to draw sweeping conclusions based solely on Internet search data, since it is impossible to know the motivations of individuals conducting the searches. But he said it is a good sign that people from across the geographic, political and education spectrums are making the connection between weather fluctuations and climate change and are seeking more information about it.
“There isn’t this intransigence that is often played up,” he said. “It’s much more dynamic.”
The next step in Lang’s research is to learn what happens after people search for information on climate change.
“There are a lot of open questions about what these results mean,” he said. “What are people doing with this information? Are they purchasing energy efficient appliances? Are they taking measures to improve their situation in the face of the changing climate? Self-motivated information seeking is a good first step, but what do they do next?”
###
===============================================================
From Springerlink:
What do Google searches tell us about our climate change fears?
Political ideology, education levels affect when people search for climate information
Republicans search the Net for information about the weather, climate change and global warming during extremely hot or cold spells. Democrats google these terms when they experience changes in the average temperatures. These are some of the surprising findings from a study by Corey Lang of the University of Rhode Island in the US, published in Springer’s journal Climatic Change.
He tracked how the temperature fluctuations and rainfall that Americans experience daily in their own cities make them scour the Internet in search of information about climate change and global warming. To do so, he used data from Google Trends, local weather stations and election results.
Google Trends aggregates all Google searches that are made, and measures how popular a specific search term is. Users can fine tune this to be specific to a particular place (such as a country or city) and time (such as monthly or on a specific date). Lang specifically checked how often, when and where citizens in 205 cities in the US used the search terms “global warming,” “climate change” and “weather.” The terms “drought” and “flood” were also included because increases in these natural phenomena are important predicted impacts of climate change. Monthly statistics were collected for the period from January 2004 to May 2013. Lang then matched them with local weather station data, as well as the 2008 presidential election results in Dave Leip’s “Atlas of Presidential Elections.”
Lang found that search activity increased when extreme heat was felt in summer, when no rain fell over extended periods, and when there were fewer extreme cold snaps in winter. Such weather fluctuations are consistent with projected climate change. Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming. Lang believes this could mean that people who observe unusual extreme weather conditions are genuinely interested in learning more about climate change. It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer.
People from varying political and educational backgrounds reach for their devices at different times to check out information on climate change. Republicans and people from less educated areas do more relevant searches during periods of extreme temperatures, while Democrats and residents of well-educated areas do so when they experience changes in average temperatures.
“Weather fluctuations have an impact on climate change related search behavior, however not always in ways that are consistent with the impacts of climate change. And the research suggests that different types of people experience weather differently or have different perceptions about what type of weather defines climate change, ” concludes Lang.
Reference: Lang, C. (2014). Do Weather Fluctuations Cause People to Seek Information about Climate Change? Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584
Both articles sucked b/c the researcher wanted confirmation of his bias.
No mention of AGW bias in Gore-supported Google searches?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2400089/posts
Documented censorship of AGW content by Google …
We did read the main article. The questions you are dismissing arose specifically because those issues were NOT answered. They were glossed over, “concluded over” by stating the conclusion again and “because I knew it was that way, I studied it that way, and so I found out what I studied was what I studied because I have been told I am an expert in what I studied.”
======================================================================
That line in bold assumes we all fear “climate change”. I don’t. I just want to know whether I need to bring an umbrella or a parka.
The only thing I “fear” about climate change is how it’s being used in the political arena to push disastrous political, social and economic policies.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
Can you provide a list of the qualifying terms used as search arguments for your study?
I’d think college-educated, agnostic, bicycling riding independents, for example, might be more clever or precise in their use of search arguments beyond “climate change,” and “global warming” when some unusual weather occurs, and more information is sought.
Some might even go to Weather Underground and check the records for that day in that locale, i.e throw a spear rather than casting a wide net, especially when you know where there is a fish in a barrel.
The smart guys know to look at the hard data first.
I note that both the introduction and results of Lang’s study state: “IPCC (2013) predicts…”.
As C. Lang likes to do searches and assume results from them, could the esteemed doctor do a search and tell me how many times any version of the word “predict” occurs in the cited document? (Hint, it doesn’t)
If he can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything he writes?
“Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming.”
Oops, in the above comment I was a little energized and hadn’t read that part yet. Well it’s summer now, not winter or spring. In July 2009 there were almost 8,000 low temperature records (links below) and the following winter was very cold. Another deep drop to GDP this winter from harsh weather and people may see their wages impacted again. State budgets for winter, are they in good shape?
Summer Polar Vortex vs. 2009 Year Without a Summer? – Jesse Ferrell Weather Blog
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/summer-polar-vortex-vs-2009-year-without-a-summer/30431014
Why the 2009-2010 winter was so cold
https://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/
Keep in mind Joseph D’Aleo is suggesting another deep freeze is very possible.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Polar Vortex summer version prelude to brutal winter and potential major energy issues
Where do the “educated” and Democrats live? Couldn’t the research just as easily “suggest” urban vs rural?
This is an example of why the alarmists are losing the public opinion battle. Saying that smart people are alarmists and dumb people are climate science deniers is not going to win you points with the American public.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 8:30 am
Apologies for not having read your study but for political results I suspect 2008 presidential election is somewhat of an outlier. Willis Eschenbach who posts here frequently and would certainly be counted among the “skeptics” of human CO2 caused climate change, admits to voting for Obama in 2008 and then switching parties in 2012.
The second point I’d like to make is there are quite likely large errors in the attribution of search location to geographic area. The “geolocate” function of Google works based on the registered address of the IP network from which the search was done. My home network shows up at a communications company some 15 miles away. While this discrepancy is minor the same issue is much more problematic with large corporate networks. The company I work for has several registered class B public networks (65,536 individual IP addresses). The main one we use is registered to the address of corporate headquarters in San Francisco, but pieces of it actually exist at a number of internet POPs (Points Of Presence) around the country. However we have hundreds of locations in the US alone, the vast majority of which do not have their own POP so their internet traffic is backhauled over internal private links to the nearest POP and transits onto the public internet from there. In addition many sites have redundant links and can route their traffic through two or more major POPs, shifting dynamically based on link latency.
In other words, a corporate desktop user in the middle of Iowa doing a Google search may transit onto the public internet at our major East Cost POP, our major West Coast POP, or one of several lesser POPs in other locations. And regardless, their IP address will be geolocated to San Francisco.
Geolocate based on IP is good enough to get the country right, but I wouldn’t trust it much beyond that.
Though I’ve taken a strong interest in “climate change” and “global warming” for many years, the only time I googled those terms was to see what websites came up.
Study makes perfect sense. Well educated people and Democrats (but I repeat myself) live
in the urban areas (mostly) while less educated people and Republicans (but I repeat myself)
live in less urbanized and rural areas.
So when the big brained democrats who live in air-conditioned houses learn from their favourite
twitter feed that this month was 0.12345 deg C above the average for the anomaly of the GISS adjusted figure for the average compared to the detrended average adjusted for urban heat creep over the last 60 years, naturally, they whip out their Uphones and check it up on Goospy
and hey presto, yes you can be my friend on facebork!
Whereas, the less edumacated and Rebublican folk, out there in the fields slaving away, makin the bacon, they are actually outside in the uhm, weather, don’t u know, and like Maw always sez
when the temperature spikes, dashburn it boy, It be so hot ahm sweating enuf to drowned a squirrel. So Maws offspring rush off to the the nearest mall and gather round outside the starbucks and ask one off those fine folks with the Uphones to pleeeze sir can u lookit for us if the weather bin different from the climate today? shucks yall.
What is the control for “how much government money” (paycheck, direct welfare, government-subsidy (student loan, government laboratory, government salary itself (union teacher, union fireman, union bureaucrat, union welfare receiver, student himself) is received vs “how much do I believe the government is using global warming to destroy life” attitude?
What is the control for “taxes paid” vs “government money received” vs attitude towards government theft of goods and services by CAGW propaganda from the government labs?
(See, we are a tough crowd. Why are you silent?)
@ur momisugly C Lang
Professionally, I’m more into causation than correlation. I might look at correlation in a naive context at the beginning of a model building exercise or perhaps later in a re-evaluation of a model but not as the main modeling endeavor. Naive correlation statements often lead to grandiose claims and predictions without forecast accountability. The world is already full of frivolous forecasts and the whole AGW climate science and policy action debate centers on science and fact accountability, not consensus fabrication, or bullying, or policy momentum, or voter block management.
” It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer”
OR, it could mean that the AGW alarmists have gone online looking for the missing heat!
papiertigre says: July 17, 2014 at 11:31 pm
assistant professor of environmental economics
My question is if this is the study of or how to “shake a money tree?”
Oscar Bajner says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:39 am
My nomination for best comment of all time.
In general, I believe most Democrats and Republicans are both pretty much average Americans with generally equal educational levels and IQ’s, similar financial situations, and generally equivalent lifestyles.
In this discussion, however, the primary reason the rank and file Democrat believes in CAGW by CO2 is because many of their fearless leaders (Gore, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, etc. (alphabetical order)) do – if they say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, the primary reason the rank and file Republican does not believe in CAGW by CO2 is because many of the Democrats fearless leaders (Gore, Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, etc.(alphabetical order)) do,
However, there are probably more Republicans who have actually done some level of research and discovered that their view more accurately reflects that of the science than Democrats.
Generally that is probably a most likely possible correct assessment.
I’m at work, have many things to do.
I think 2008 would not be an outlier. There tends to be a lot of stasis in county vote shares, especially in the last 5 elections.
In terms of mis-attribution of location, this is interesting. I’m unaware of the technical details. I suspect Google is, but maybe not. If Google was getting people’s locations wrong, this would attenuate any statistical estimates (push them towards zero). Meaning the estimates I get may be smaller than they actually are.
Despite an earlier post, I think there’s still a misconception about how I’m looking at political ideology and educational attainment. They are totally separate in the model.
Also, I don’t view the results for one political or educational group as better or worse. There is no right answer about when someone should or shouldn’t seek information about climate change. I think it’s just interesting that there appears to be a difference among these groups. No judgement.
“above average heat, drought or warmer winters, for instance”
In order to have an average temperature you will inevitably and cycles where the temperature runs below the average and the opposite where temperature runs above average.
I installed a Vantage Pro II weather station on my property 5 years ago. I have tracked the averages since then. Surprise, Surprise my averages are consistent with the long term average. It doesn’t do to get you panties in a bunch over a few hot or cool days.
You’re right, they don’t use “predict” (probably a PR reason). They do use “project” and “projections”. Good enough?
Rules for Marginal Researchers
1) find a large data set that is free to access
2) don’t ask too many questions to yourself or to others about the data quality or distortions that might be in the data set
3) mine the data set for every slanted model question that you can think of and submit papers
4) list the paper presentations or publications on a vitae and suppress your conscience each time
5) test your personality type by flaunting your constructed vitae and network with like-minded data miners to become a peer reviewer and get promotions
6) influence policy as best you can to provide feedback to your bias in step 3
Someone give me some examples of where the climate has changed.
C Lang said:
” Interestingly though, searches also increased when average winter and spring temperatures dropped – events that are inconsistent with global warming. Lang believes this could mean that people who observe unusual extreme weather conditions are genuinely interested in learning more about climate change. It could, however, also mean that deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter, go online to confirm their skeptical views that the world is not really growing warmer.”
As an unusually cold winter is inconsistent with global warming, the rational response would be to be sceptical of global warming, especially as US land temperatures have been falling. According to your categorisations, it sounds like your Republicans are more concerned about natural and real climate change, and your Democrats are concerned about the modeled climate changes, in spite of what is really occurring.