IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v44y2013i2-3p409-426.html

If Local Weather Was Our Only Indicator

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Szafran
  • Jerry L. Williams
  • Jeffery E. Roth

Abstract

It is understandably difficult for individuals and communities to recognize the effect of gradual climate change when it occurs in the context of local weather patterns, which normally vary from year to year. This recognition difficulty delays discussion of the causes of climate change and forestalls adjustments in policy and action. In this article, the authors estimate the length of time it would take a majority of localities to simultaneously acknowledge climate change if the only source of information about climate change was local weather. They run computer simulations using U.S. weather station data from 1946 to 2005. Local weather is allowed to vary randomly around a constant mean (models assuming no climate change) or a rising mean (models assuming climate change). They run separate models for annual average temperature, annual maximum temperature, and annual variation in monthly precipitation, varying the definition of unusual weather from 0.5 to 2.5 standard deviations from the historic average and varying the number of consecutive years of unusual weather required to reject the belief of normal variation and accept the belief of climate change from 1 year to 5 years. When it is assumed that acknowledgment of climate change requires three consecutive years of weather, a full standard deviation or more above the historic mean, it requires, depending on which weather event is being modeled, an average of 21 years, 86 years, or 82 years for a majority of localities to be in a state of climate change belief.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Szafran & Jerry L. Williams & Jeffery E. Roth, 2013. "If Local Weather Was Our Only Indicator," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 44(2-3), pages 409-426, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:44:y:2013:i:2-3:p:409-426
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878112443357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878112443357
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878112443357?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. Gilbert, 1997. "A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(2), pages 91-105, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. G. David Garson, 2009. "Computerized Simulation in the Social Sciences," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 40(2), pages 267-279, April.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff, 2015. "Can intellectual processes in the sciences also be simulated? The anticipation and visualization of possible future states," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2197-2214, December.
    3. David O'Sullivan & Mordechai Haklay, 2000. "Agent-Based Models and Individualism: Is the World Agent-Based?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(8), pages 1409-1425, August.
    4. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    5. Heshmati, Almas & Lenz-Cesar, Flávio, 2013. "Determinants and Policy Simulation of Firms Cooperation in Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 7487, IZA Network @ LISER.
    6. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    7. Isaac Naveh & Ron Sun, 2006. "A cognitively based simulation of academic science," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 313-337, December.
    8. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    9. Matthias Meyer & Iris Lorscheid & Klaus G. Troitzsch, 2009. "The Development of Social Simulation as Reflected in the First Ten Years of JASSS: a Citation and Co-Citation Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12.
    10. Francisco Grimaldo & Mario Paolucci & Jordi Sabater-Mir, 2018. "Reputation or peer review? The role of outliers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1421-1438, September.
    11. Matthias Meyer, 2011. "Bibliometrics, Stylized Facts and the Way Ahead: How to Build Good Social Simulation Models of Science?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-4.
    12. M. Laura Frigotto & Massimo Riccaboni, 2011. "A few special cases: scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 397-420, October.
    13. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2011. "Simulations of opinion changes in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(2), pages 233-250, May.
    14. Gilbert, Nigel & Ahrweiler, Petra & Pyka, Andreas, 2007. "Learning in innovation networks: Some simulation experiments," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 100-109.
    15. Flavio Lenz-Cesar & Almas Heshmati, 2010. "Agent-based Simulation of Cooperative Innovation," TEMEP Discussion Papers 201052, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Jan 2010.
    16. Matthias Meyer & Michael A. Zaggl & Kathleen M. Carley, 2011. "Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-34, March.
    17. Andreas Pyka & Nigel Gilbert & Petra Ahrweiler, 2006. "Simulating Knowledge-Generation and -Distribution Processes in Innovation Collaborations and Networks," Discussion Paper Series 287, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    18. Petra Ahrweiler, 2011. "Modelling Theory Communities in Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-8.
    19. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2017. "The miracle of peer review and development in science: an agent-based model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 587-607, October.
    20. Jeffrey O’Neal London & Nasir Jamil Sheikh, 2020. "Innovation in African-American high-tech enterprises: a multi-agent approach," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 7(4), pages 3101-3121, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:44:y:2013:i:2-3:p:409-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.