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
Mr Lang
What is a climate Denier?
No one here Denies that there is a such thing as Climate or Climate Change. We understand there is change and always has been it is the people who believe AGW that think there was one stagnate Climate that has now all of the sudden gone crazy and that there is something wrong because there is change.
There are many sides to this issue and a lot of legitimate debate on all sides, but you and many others assign a labels to only one side of the discussion, how can anyone take you seriously when you do that.
Spend sometime here and read, you will learn a lot and maybe even understand that there is much legitimate debate and if anything the science is on the side of the people who question AGW.
Present data and trends and look at them BEFORE you come to your conclusions. No one really knows what is going on but through investigation and debate we certainly have started to realizes what isn’t going and that is what we have been told is settled science.
I don’t believe I used that phrase. If so, I mis-spoke. I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.
I agree wholeheartedly with looking at data. I have my students look at 100 years of raw temperature records for over 100 countries. They make graphs and analyze trends. We also look at tide gauge records and sea ice extent.
What is the time span of data you look at?
I’m so uneducated (right wing) I don’t use Google. I have favorite weather sites bookmarked.
Mr. Lang assumes Republicans and the uneducated are “deniers”. In terms of logic the study is a tautology.
“Oscar Bajner says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:39 am”
Hehehe.
“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.”
Do you think people are that stupid?
Of course there is implied judgment.
You made the connection that works for your Ideological Narrative.
For example you could have put Democrats and Rich instead of Educated but that would destroy the message that is intended to be conveyed.
Because the Rich is only to be used as a shaming word with Republicans when they are a threat and right now the threat are not Wallstreet Republicans but middle of the road Teaparties.
When the threat are middle class Republicans the shaming word is less educated= read uneducated.
When the threat are educated Republicans the shaming word is rich.
Of course we do not read or hear anything about Uneducated Democrats,in that case your operative word would be Disadvantaged – with emphasis of course in immigration status and ethnic stock – Uneducated or Democrats would never appear..
An utilitarian victimization, to project the guild and shaming to the others.
Hello Mr Lang,
I respectfully repeat the request of several other commenters and ask you to define what you mean by “climate science deniers”? As it is used in the quoted lines above it is both derogatory and implies a strong bias. I appreciate the fact that you have chosen to weigh in here on WUWT, thank you for your participation. (not that I speak for anyone but myself on this)
Thanks,
Joe
Lang wrote; “However, the results suggest that the effects align for metros with a large percentage of college graduates and a large percentage of Democrats.”
Mr. Lang: What are the percentages of college graduates and Democrats in metro Detroit?
College graduates is too broad a category. It could mean “Ethnic Studies”, or “Community Organizer”. I personally know a lawyer who is a rabid “believer”, but of course his science education doesn’t go beyond the MSM.
Too bad you can’t break out “education” into categories such as the hard sciences.
.
Hi Joe, I respectfully point you to a post I made a few minutes ago:
.
I agree it would be really nice to be able to have this breakdown. But I am constrained to use averages. Further, because of the aggregate nature of the google data, we can’t say what the characteristics are of the people doing the searching, just the characteristics of the metro in which they live.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 11:24 am
“You’re right, they don’t use “predict” (probably a PR reason). They do use “project” and “projections”. Good enough?”
You’re kidding, right? You can’t be bothered to understand the semantics of the IPCC report and chalk up your error to a PR reason on their part? So the IPCC report is just a PR document?
Close enough for government work.
Again, if you can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything you write?
I’m really confused about why you think there is implied judgement. I chose a model that allowed for heterogeneity in impacts across the ideological spectrum and educational spectrum. The results suggested in fact there is heterogeneity. But there is no value judgement placed on that heterogeneity. The results do not denigrate any group.
C Lang says
“I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Who disregards, we disagree there is a huge difference.
Debating the conclusions is not denial its science, peer review does establish something as fact it establishes something as worth of debate and investigation. AGW is a theory that is being put forth to explain observations in nature. Almost no one here dismisses anything out of hand they investigate the data and the conclusions and challenge the results and the evidence is more and more on the this side of the debate anyway. AGW may prove out in the end but the models that the theory is based around and the conclusion derived there from clearly are at odds with observed fact.
I will and do listen to anything that AGW supporters say but more and more it is becoming dogma and not science and unfortunately the bias is all too obvious and this brings into question the motives of the these people and why they fear to be questioned and debated.
If you want to use labels on the subject choose balanced ones like Supporters of the theory and Non-supporters of the theory.
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?
I’m off to spend time with my kids. Enjoy your weekend everyone! It’s been real.
Mr Lang
i will add that i appreciate that you have taken the time present here and stand up to the fire i wish more people would be willing to do that. i also think that perhaps if you would take more time and pay attention you would see that there is true debate and that perhaps maybe that AGW is not so settled and that these people are not deniers they just see different conclusions in the data.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm
” I have my students look at 100 years of raw temperature records for over 100 countries. They make graphs and analyze trends. We also look at tide gauge records and sea ice extent.
What is the time span of data you look at?”
__________________
Why just 100 years? Do your students know that 9,100 of the past 10,000 yrs have been warmer than the past century? Have your students determined that the rate of sea level rise has remained unchanged since at least, 1971, or that sea level has been higher several times in recorded human history? Have they figured out that there has been no “global warming” for well over a decade?
Lang wrote: “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?”
I plan my day for the expected weather. If I searched for people trying to sail the NW passage I just laugh.
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Psychics and Astrologers make “predictions”; mathematicians and psychologists make “projections”; mechanical engineers make “projectiles”.
In common usage the two words are frequently interchanged. The insistence on a distinction comes from the IPCC and supporters when confronted with the fact their predicted temperature increases have not been observed; the response the model outputs were “projections”, not “predictions”. The distinction being that false predictions discredit a theory but false projections do not.
Clear now?
substitute above “… the response was that the model outputs …”
Used in a sentence:
WordPress projects they will make available a preview feature for comments, but I predict it will not happen.
So far, my record beats Jean Dixon’s.
Mr Lang says
“They make graphs and analyze trends.”
OK that’s great and so does almost everyone here and much more and they come to different conclusions.
My 4th grader does as well but that doesn’t mean he always comes to the right conclusion it also doesn’t mean that his results can’t be questioned even after his teacher “peer review?” affirms his results.
I have and always will question what I am told is true even when others tell me i am not educated enough or smart enough or what ever enough to. Shockingly I am sometimes even come to the same conclusions as others have and then find someone else who looks at it differently and proves me wrong. I don’t get upset I rejoice. Do you think Einstein was any less correct to question Newtons conclusions even though Newton was pier reviewed and excepted?
Science is debate.
Change is the nature of things.
so election results from places that had 120% and more of registered voters voting…seems to me this could skew the baseline data.
C Lang says: (July 18, 2014 at 6:32 am) “One thing I wanted to clear up is the notion that I’m equating political ideology and education levels.”
That is exactly the message and it is likely that feature that ensures publication, a reflection of the Sokal Affair.
I have a doubt that very many people get beyond that part. The Democrats feel smart and vindicated, the Republicans feel once again deprecated.
I notice the careful word choice “educated” rather than “intelligent”. Education is nearly synonymous with “indoctrinated” and the more of it you have, the more indoctrinated you must become especially with professorships being almost exclusively Democrat particularly in New England (Ivy League) and publicly funded state colleges (see links below).
I am trying to imagine a scenario where this paper actually means anything. I know from my own experience that Washington DC has a huge population of uneducated Democrats whereas some western states probably have a smaller population of uneducated Republicans — just how many graduate degrees does a rancher need? But he WILL check the weather *especially* if it is extreme because what threatens his animals threaten HIM.
New England has many educated Democrats.
Texas has many educated Republicans.
The weather tends not to be extreme in coastal areas, moderated by nearby oceans.
The weather is most extreme in the midwest largely dominated by Republican leaning farmers and ranchers. They don’t care about climate change per se, but they DO care about long range forecasting (ie, climate forecasting).
Links pertaining to college/education political bias:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left#sthash.38KSh90t.dpbs
” A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans.”
“The professor, whose new book “The Righteous Mind” examines the moral roots of our political positions, asked the nearly 1,000 academics and students in the room to raise their hands if they were liberals. Nearly 80 percent of the hands went up. When he asked whether there were any conservatives in the house, just three hands — 0.3 percent — went up.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased
My comment: Part of this problem is that “conservative” is not well defined, but “liberal” has a more clear meaning particularly in the college context. It is nearly synonymous with “I am a member of this herd” to be liberal, but to be conservative is to say “I don’t belong here.”
The reality is likely not that divided. If you saw 80 percent of the hands suddenly go up while you are dozing off you’d raise your hand too.
dmacleo, do you have an example of such a place?
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
“Taphonomic says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:45 pm
You’re kidding, right? You can’t be bothered to understand the semantics of the IPCC report and chalk up your error to a PR reason on their part? So the IPCC report is just a PR document?
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?”
Perhaps you should review the IPCC’s definitions to see exactly what they describe as the difference. After all, you are citing them not me. Why did you choose to change the wording if you don’t understand the difference? This doesn’t say much for your scholarship or for the peer review of the journal if they didn’t catch this error.
You seem to be dodging several questions. Do you really think the IPCC report is just a PR document? If you can’t accurately understand and convey what the cited documents state, why should anyone put any credence in anything you write?
C Lang writes on his paper, page 3
“The results could suggest that people link weather anomalies of any kind with climate change or perhaps the engagement of deniers, who experience an unusually cool winter and go online to confirm their skeptical views.”
Deniers? Why would a “denier” go online?
It is the curious and the skeptical that may be moved to research a thing.
Speaking of “may be”, is there anything WEAKER than to write “could suggest…”
Yeah, it could suggest that, but then again, maybe it doesn’t, but if it does, it is still a suggestion. I could always ASK some people but, no, Google is a good enough proxy for reality.
So do I go online after a major weather event? Indeed I do — I wish to be entertained by people blaming everything (such as pongos in Siberia) on global warming. I wish to see what the warmists are saying about frozen Lake Michigan or the relentless growth of ice in Antarctica sticking it to Australian eco-tourists.
A sudden burst of “weather” does not cause me to be interested in climate change.