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
C. Lang’s broad-brush use of the term “climate science denier” strongly suggests a lack of correlation between “educated” and “intelligent.”
Bill 2 says:
July 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm
dmacleo, do you have an example of such a place?
***********************************************
had the 2012 results showing many precincts in Mass, Pennsylvania, few other places showing 120% and more, cannot seem to find the pdf file now though.
2008 had similar findings although not as bad.
IIRC all happened in precincts in cities and no rural areas.
however the info is out there in many places of you search, granted would be mostly conservative political type sites.
heres one from boston
will keep looking for the larger combined one.
shoot link didn’t post
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/files/file/152-boston-ward-reports-unofficial/
I wondered if just the media splash pages were acutely political or if it really is in the paper itself. Yes, it is in the paper, page 5, and repeated in this form throughout the paper:
“Republican and less educated areas increase search activity in response to changes in extreme temperatures consistent with climate change, whereas more Democratic and well educated areas increase search activity in response to changes in average temperatures consistent with climate change.”
The association of Republican to less educated areas is of the form:
A = C
B = C
Therefore A = B where “A” is Republican, “B” is less educated areas, and “C” is increased search activity during extreme temperature consistent with climate change.
Mr. Lang could at least *pretend* to be unbiased. It gets better:
“The first contribution of this paper is to add to the strong literature that seeks to understand
the effect of local weather on beliefs that temperature is changing, that climate change is real, or that a given policy is justified”
There’s the agenda.
“One concern about prior findings is that survey respondents may posture answers that reflect an agenda rather than their true beliefs. ”
Yeah, I see that in scientific papers, too!
“find that those who do not believe in global warming or are conservative are significantly less likely to accurately report unusually warm weather. ”
Conservatives don’t report ANYTHING. You mind your business and I mind mine.
“I show that cities at all points in the spectrum”
Really? This I gotta see — a Libertarian city? Can there be such a thing?
“Population comes from the 2010 Decennial Census, and these data are used to weight media markets in the regression analysis.”
Hmm, I am starting to understand this. I think it belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results. It seems to be an assumption that Google searching is uniformly distributed throughout a population, if the population is Democrat, so must be the searchers.
Anyway, let’s check on the representative samples of “conservative” cities.
“Salt Lake City, UT and Knoxville, TN have few Democratic voters (34.3% and 32.4%, respectively) ”
Salt Lake City is predominantly Democrat. Its main newspaper (http://www.sltrib.com) is Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Becker_%28mayor%29 (Democrat)
Predecessor: Rocky Anderson, also a Democrat.
“In November 2009, Becker signed into law non-discrimination ordinances that forbid landlords and employers to deny housing or jobs due to sexual orientation or gender identity. In December 2013, Becker officiated over some of the first same-sex marriages performed in the state of Utah”
Try harder to find a city that is not Democrat. But you might be right that SLC and Knoxville are not as “blue” as San Francisco.
“This could indicate that different types of people experience weather differently or have different perceptions about what type of weather defines climate change.”
That should go in the Journal of Obvious Statements.
dmacleo, the Boston case was explained here. Sorry, no conspiracy…
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35319922188/voter-fraud-boston-reports-129-voter-turnout-79-for
Page 15: “showed that exposure to climate change information can lead to an increase in voluntary carbon mitigation”
It can. Might not, but it can. You just never know! I’m guessing! If I knew I wouldn’t say “can”.
highflight56433 on July 18, 2014 at 11:28 am
“Someone give me some examples of where the climate has changed.”
I think they find whale bones in the Sahara desert, so that would imply to me that the Saharan climate was slightly different before us humans showed up and wrecked everything.
But don’t take my word for it, I’m just a dumb country hick (from the country and currently in the country!) with conservative political views…and a PhD in Physical Chemistry/ Quantum Mechanics from an Ivy League school. But shucks darn I can read and here’s the link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html
C Lang says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
What do you see as the difference between “predict” and “project”?
Normal people don’t see much of a difference. IPCC however, does. They are very careful not to use word “prediction”, because if they “predict” something and it doesn’t happen, their theory is falsified. Projections don’t have that danger – they can be 100% wrong with no effect on underlaying theory.
If you think I’m kidding, you’d be wrong. This is not my definition – it’s IPCC’s. This is how they answer to their critics when confronted with the fact that none of their “projected/predicted” disasters have happened yet.
I suggest you to actually look into all weasel word climate science is using. Maybe, once you understand the actual state of “climate science” and how offensive “denier” is to us you’d stop using “climate science denier” in your papers.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, though.
We libertarians are part of the largest bloc of voters in the US. “No Party Affiliation”.
The “Libertarian Party” is highly anarchist. So most libertarians are NPA
Bill 2 says:
July 18, 2014 at 3:23 pm
dmacleo, the Boston case was explained here. Sorry, no conspiracy…
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/35319922188/voter-fraud-boston-reports-129-voter-turnout-79-for
I really don’t see much of an explanation here. Only an unproven theory. Besides, I might be wrong but I don’t remember 2 pages in my ballot.
I wonder if Corey knows that since he was about 16 years old the world has experienced not just no accelerated warming but no warming at all?
Udar,
I see no substantial difference between “projection” and “prediction”. When you project something in the future, you are predicting, no?
The UN/IPCC only makes that ‘distinction without a difference’ to give themselves some wiggle room.
Also, Bill, thanks for linking Poor Richard’s News. It is one of the better news aggregators.
dbstealey says:
July 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Udar,
I see no substantial difference between “projection” and “prediction”. When you project something in the future, you are predicting, no?
No argument from me. I don’t see a difference.
IPCC, however, does. To them, the difference is important. And so it should be to anyone who uses their reports, whether they agree or disagree.
Which peer-reviewed scientific literature would it be that a climate science denier ‘dis-regards’, exactly?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates that there has been no rise in GAST for nearly two decades?
Or the peer-reviewed scientific literature that predicted, (while weasley calling it “projected”) a 0.4C rise in GAST over the same period?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates that now is the time of the largest extent of Antarctic sea ice on record, and overall average sea ice globally?
Or the peer-reviewed scientific literature that predicted spiraling declines in sea ice in both hemispheres?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature that describes the Medieval Climate Optimum?
Or, the peer-reviewed scientific literature that denies the Medieval Climate Optimum?
A Climate Cultist necessarily dis-regards peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to arrive at the false assertion that there exists the peer-reviewed scientific literature by which he may define his derogatory “climate science denier” epithet.
I appreciate the tips on improving commenting on my blog. I always try to pose a question at the end of an article to spur discussion as well.
thanks.
So democrats are smart and republicans are dumb. Thats what the writer was really trying to say as the rest of the story made zero sense. Got it.
Freaking idiot
C Lang
“I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Ah… so Einstein was a Physics denier. That would been very helpful.
And funny how suddenly being judgmental started to be okay.
But i see that you follow Lysenkism.
=================================================================
I don’t know what raw data you have your students look at or how many years you’ve been doing it but may I suggest you look at the oldest set you have and compare it to the most recent set.
You may find the past numbers have been changed.
I know the record highs and lows for my area have been changed.
You can also use TheWayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) to check.
Go to the website for whatever lists you want to check then copy/paste that site into the main search box. If the site has been archived, you can see how the past numbers have been changed.
That might be a good exercise for your students. “How many data sets have been changed by Man.”
US citizens who experienced extreme weather events in 1936 did not have the internet to confirm their confirmation bias. In fact they just called it bad whether back in the day. Now see if you can spot the difference – it concerns George Monbiot of the Warmist Guardian newspaper in the UK.
EXHIBIT 1.
EXHIBIT 2.
Sometimes I don’t know weather to laugh or cry.
Correction
…bad whether back in the day….
…bad weather back in the day….
Very interesting comments section. I found it telling what the author of the paper in question decided to acknowledge.
In my experience most DO make up their minds on this issue based on ideology. That said, the vast bulk Ive ever encountered who even understood the claims, and actually followed the published work were skeptical of atleast the C in cagw. The case for the C in cage is horribly weak.
David L. says:
July 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“I think they find whale bones in the Sahara desert, so that would imply to me that the Saharan climate was slightly different before us humans showed up and wrecked everything.”
“But don’t take my word for it, I’m just a dumb country hick (from the country and currently in the country!) with conservative political views…and a PhD in Physical Chemistry/ Quantum Mechanics from an Ivy League school. But shucks darn I can read and here’s the link:”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0414_050414_egyptwhale.html
Gee Whiz Mr. David L. that was 70 million years ago. I guess you did not read that part. Just to be clear, I am looking for someone who can provide me with some climate change of the CAGW variety…the part claimed by econazis that humans have been destroying. Not one example. Yet. … waiting.
Sorry you are feeling so guilty over having showed up and wrecked every thing. There may be a psychiatrist or clergy here at this site to lend you assistance. 🙂 LMAO
I want to know what kind of degrees the supposedly “more educated” have. Maybe we are talking about a lot of liberal arts, communications, english, and art degrees. Educated as measured here might not have anything to do with intelligent. I read this as “democrats, a segment of the population with a high percentage of useless and non technical degrees, are not capable of evaluating climate studies on their own. Thus they fall into the AGW camp and use google accordingly.”