Finding common ground fosters understanding of climate change

Feb 17, 2014

Grasping the concept of climate change and its impact on the environment can be difficult. Establishing common ground and using models, however, can break down barriers and present the concept in an easily understood manner.

In a presentation at this year's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Michigan State University systems ecologist and modeler Laura Schmitt-Olabisi shows how system dynamics models effectively communicate the challenges and implications of .

"In order to face the ongoing challenges posed by climate adaptation, there is a need for tools that can foster dialogue across traditional boundaries, such as those between scientists, the general public and decision makers," Schmitt-Olabisi said. "Using boundary objects, such as maps, diagrams and models, all groups involved can use these objects to have a discussion to create possible solutions."

Schmitt-Olabisi has vast experience working directly with stakeholders using participatory -building techniques. She uses a model of a hypothetical heat wave in Detroit to illustrate the implications of climate change.

Climate change is anticipated to increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves in the Midwest, which could potentially claim hundreds or thousands of lives. Hot weather kills more people in the United States annually than any other type of natural disaster, and the impacts of heat on human health will be a major climate change adaptation challenge.

To better understand urban health systems and how they respond to heat waves, Schmitt-Olabisi's team interviewed urban planners, health officials and emergency managers. They translated those interviews into a computer model along with data from earlier Midwestern heat waves.

Participants are able to manipulate the model and watch how their changes affect the outcome of an emergency. The exercise revealed some important limitations of previous approaches to reducing deaths and hospitalizations caused by extreme heat.

"The model challenges some widely held assumptions, such as the belief that opening more cooling centers is the best solution," Schmitt-Olabisi said. "As it turns out, these centers are useless if people don't know they should go to them."

More importantly, the model provides a tool, a language that everyone can understand. It is a positive example of how system dynamics models may be used as boundary objects to adapt to climate change, she added.

Overall, Schmitt-Olabisi finds that this approach is a powerful tool for illuminating problem areas and for identifying the best ways to help vulnerable populations. Future research will focus on improving the models' accuracy as well as expanding it beyond the Midwest.

"In order for the models to be deployed to improve decision-making, more work will need be done to ensure the model results are realistic," Schmitt-Olabisi said.

Explore further: Hot issues in climate change research to be debated at AAAS Annual Meeting

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Unravelling the uncertainties of predicting future heatwaves

Sep 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- As the UK swelters in the grip of a late September heat-wave researchers at The University of Nottingham have warned that while Indian summers could become more common, heat-waves in the future could become ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

2 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 30

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Shootist
2 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2014
Common ground: I've got your common ground.

http://pjmedia.co...aration/

CLIMATE CHANGE: Cooling Kills: Governments Must Shift to Cold Preparation.

"Humans suffer much more during extreme winters than hot summers. . . . Of particularl concern are the warnings from solar scientists that over the next three decades, we are headed toward significant global cooling as the sun weakens into a grand minimum. The last time the sun was as weak as solar experts predict will occur starting after 2030, the Earth was in a particularly cold phase of the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1350-1850, a period when there was great misery around the world."

"The polar bears will be fine." - F. Dyson.
Agomemnon
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2014
"In order for the models to be deployed to improve decision-making, more work will need be done to ensure the model results are realistic," Schmitt-Olabisi said

couldn't agree more since all the current 'models', predictions and such are complete and utter rubbish.

Of course 17+ years of no warming makes it harder to scream 'crisis' and have anyone believe them.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2014
AGWites attack and excommunicate any who seek common ground, like Bjorn Lomborg.

Anyone who tries to change the message to using technology and innovation to adapt to changing climate instead of govt coercion must be attacked.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2014
Common ground implies a give and take by both sides. Right! When it comes to government mandates, if you give them an inch they take a mile of your freedom.

None of this is about any sort of real science. It is about central power and wealth consolidation. They say they want to redistribute the wealth but anyone with half a brain knows that they will redistribute it to themselves. Governments grow larger and large until the host dies in a giant blood bath.
orti
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2014
Common ground exists in an un-jiggered review process with un-jiggered data (e.g. East Anglia emails, and the rest). It exists in researchers not groveling for Big Gov money (i.e. UN and progressive admins in the US, Germany, and elsewhere) that has an interest in finding more excuses for more control and the taking of peoples freedom and wealth. It exits in not resorting to cheap propaganda gimmicks (e.g. hockey sticks, polar bear cubs on an ice cube, etc). It exists in not pushing flawed models and coming up with obviously phony excuses (e.g. hiding in the deep ocean, in the places we aren't monitoring, etc.) when they prove false. Common ground resides in honoring scientific integrity, not its politization.
orti
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2014
And common ground exists in the rejection of the environmentalist's perpetual Luddite chickenlittleism.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2014
"The model challenges some widely held assumptions, such as the belief that opening more cooling centers is the best solution," Schmitt-Olabisi said. "As it turns out, these centers are useless if people don't know they should go to them."
"People need good information and direction" added her colleague Dr.Frost. Our next project is manufacturing huge "Hide from the sun exposure here, in shade" signs, and installing them on the north side of buildings.

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2014
OMG; You guys are freaks.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2014
OMG; You guys are freaks.


Yep, sure are.
Of the first order.

Someone must have opened the gates of the asylum for them.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2014
As long as the solution to the problem involves transferring massive amounts of wealth from individuals to governments and the corporations that control them, I will remain a skeptic.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2014
Finding common ground fosters understanding of climate change
AGWites apparently think the population consists entirely of simpletons who should believe their every word, just because they say so.

It's hard to find common ground when they lie with such regularity.

Take this stated statistic, for instance.

Hot weather kills more people in the United States annually than any other type of natural disaster, and the impacts of heat on human health will be a major climate change adaptation challenge.
This is not true in the long term, and not true at all, when you include the conveniently ignored frost famines which have killed millions.

Here's but one example (includes a list of similar events):

http://en.wikiped...a_Summer

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2014
As long as the solution to the problem involves transferring massive amounts of wealth from individuals to governments and the corporations that control them, I will remain a skeptic.


Why can't you see the bizarre obtuseness of that argument.....

That the science is wrong because YOU don't like the perceived solution to it?

Your world must be a very easy place to make decisions in, as for all the denialists on here. Filter everything through a judgment of the way it is being handled and if you don't like it, ergo all the foundations of it are wrong. If the world were inhabited by you lot as the majority, mankind would never have achieved what it has. I only hope you lot don't bugger up the planet I inhabit as well as you. if the minority of selfish people (sorry, that is what you are - considering yourself above others) end up causing humans further problems on this Earth - I just hope you get to realise it in some "future existence".
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2014
There is nothing wrong with the argument at all. As long as the government controls the research there can be no real science involved in the findings.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2014
AGWites apparently think the population consists entirely of simpletons who should believe their every word, just because they say so

@Uba
biased much?
I was willing to find common ground...
until you decided that no matter what happened and what anyone else said, global warming had ended in your mind and everyone else was wrong!
It's hard to find common ground when they lie with such regularity.

guess not much has changed
especially since it was I who showed that YOU lied...

this is only going to degrade from here.
There is nothing wrong with the argument at all. As long as the government controls the research there can be no real science involved in the findings

@mr166
so you think having the Koch bros et al is a better choice?
They have a vested interest in making people believe warming does not exist so that they can make billions more...
see: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

if the science is legit, why hide sources?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2014
AGWites apparently think the population consists entirely of simpletons who should believe their every word, just because they say so
@Uba
biased much?
No, not at all.

I was willing to find common ground...
until you decided that no matter what happened and what anyone else said, global warming had ended in your mind and everyone else was wrong!
See, this is the very problem. You insist it's still warming, which is not true, and then wonder why anyone might not believe you.

It's hard to find common ground when they lie with such regularity.
guess not much has changed
especially since it was I who showed that YOU lied...
LOL. Hardly. As I've repeatedly shown, the globe stopped warming as much as 16.5 years ago, and multiple climate scientists are acknowledging this fact. That you refuse to do likewise is a personal (and typically AGWite) choice you've made to obfuscate the truth, as it doesn't jibe with your personal AGWite agenda.

this is only going to degrade from here.
Only in as much as you continue to lie.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2014
You insist it's still warming, which is not true, and then wonder why anyone might not believe you

@uba
actually, I dont care if they believe me or not
as for the "not true" statement... if you cherry pick the data, you can show that it is reversed or gone as well, until, of course, you look at it all in context.
And like I said before... it is TOO EARLY TO TELL
give me a decade and we will talk about stopped warming then
LOL. Hardly.

unfortunately, I can pull all the posts and prove it
including your goal post moving, and your claims one minute, which change the next
a personal (and typically AGWite) choice you've made to obfuscate the truth

YOU were the one CHERRY-PICKING DATA
I chose to expose all of it
that means YOU were obfuscating the truth...
your personal AGWite agenda

what agenda is that?
My personal agenda is simple: survive; learn; never hide the data, as it is ALL necessary
you continue to lie

proof?

I CAN prove YOU lied!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2014
As I've repeatedly shown, the globe stopped warming as much as 16.5 years ago

@Uba
one last thing on this:
I said before that trends are normally 30 years. You are saying that you have a "trend" that shows warming stopped, paused, or whatever...
as I said before... a TREND is normally 30 years
when your "trend" reaches longer time periods, then you can tell me there is a TREND, but until it does, it is not
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
[sic]
http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#W

show all the cherry-picked data you want
I will wait and watch the TRENDS
and I will watch ALL of the data
not just your small culled charts
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
You insist it's still warming, which is not true, and then wonder why anyone might not believe you
@uba
actually, I dont care if they believe me or not
This is obviously false (another lie), as you wouldn't carry on so if you didn't care.

as for the "not true" statement... if you cherry pick the data, you can show that it is reversed or gone as well, until, of course, you look at it all in context.
In the context of the last 16.5 years, there has been no global warming.

And like I said before... it is TOO EARLY TO TELL
Funny, lots of scientists don't feel this way.

give me a decade and we will talk about stopped warming then
Or warming may resume. Either case does not diminish the fact of the current hiatus.

LOL. Hardly.
unfortunately, I can pull all the posts and prove it
including your goal post moving, and your claims one minute, which change the next
These are just more lies, as it is you who insists on moving the goalposts. If this were not true, you'd be willing to discuss only the last 16.5 years.

a personal (and typically AGWite) choice you've made to obfuscate the truth
YOU were the one CHERRY-PICKING DATA
I chose to expose all of it
that means YOU were obfuscating the truth...
Nope. I've long acknowledged previous warming, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the current hiatus, making you the obfuscator.

your personal AGWite agenda
what agenda is that?
My personal agenda is simple: survive; learn; never hide the data, as it is ALL necessary
Then why do you hide the 16.5 year trend?

you continue to lie
proof?
See above.

I CAN prove YOU lied!
LOL. Good luck with that.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
As I've repeatedly shown, the globe stopped warming as much as 16.5 years ago
@Uba
one last thing on this:
I said before that trends are normally 30 years. You are saying that you have a "trend" that shows warming stopped, paused, or whatever...
as I said before... a TREND is normally 30 years
when your "trend" reaches longer time periods, then you can tell me there is a TREND, but until it does, it is not
There's no law mandating the length of a trend.


Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
[sic]
http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#W
This is the IPCC definition. Even so, did you notice this part: "a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

But the standard English definition leaves the period undefined.

"the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period:"

http://www.oxford.../climate

And:

"the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."

http://dictionary.../climate

show all the cherry-picked data you want
I will wait and watch the TRENDS
and I will watch ALL of the data
not just your small culled charts
And here again, you prove you're the one obfuscating and moving the goalposts.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
you wouldn't carry on so if you didn't care

@uba
caring about what people think and correcting idiots who post misinformation is two different things
16.5 years

not a trend
come back in another 13.5
lots of scientists don't feel this way

seems to me that they are watching the data, just like me
but then again, some are trying to figure it out as well
the fact of the current hiatus

original argument has always been the same
you called it a trend
I said it doesnt have enough data and that trends are normally longer
yadda yadda yadda
should I post all this again?
Its not like you can hide it unless you get perma-banned...
but thats ok, I have it all saved to a document too.
I figured if you were willing to lie outright about what you said earlier in a thread (when you claimed there is no global warming) then you would lie about everything else
so I made back-ups
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
just more lies, as it is you who insists on moving the goalposts

@uba
my argument has not changed
my argument is: 16.5 yrs not long enough to say that global warming has ended (per your statement that it HAS ended) and that the data you have is cherry picked and should include longer times, and that you are making a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts
discuss only the last 16.5 years

this is irrelevant and should be taken in context with larger data spread over a greater time period
I've long acknowledged previous warming

you also claimed there was no warming
16.5 year trend

should have read my link
LOL. Good luck with that

would you like me to start adding links and pasting your quotes showing your lies?
Its not like I need to do much except link to ANY article that mentions climate in it
its not like there is a shortage of those links... even have some where i posted your lies right from the same article!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
@Uba cont'd
There's no law mandating the length of a trend

did you notice this part

yes, but did YOU notice, just as I said, the average normally is 30 years
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

this has been part of my argument from the beginning
Runrig even told you
now I posted a link showing you
it is NORMALLY 30 YEARS
and I still stand by that. When you get more time, I will consider your data set
once it has been verified as accurate, that is
since I now know that you cherry-pick data to suit your purposes
But the standard English definition

the dictionary also allows that trends can be in clothing and art,
but I dont see clothing or art in climate or even weather
so I will stick with the WMO definition, especially as we are dealing with CLIMATE
NOT CLOTHING
you're the one obfuscating and moving the goalposts

nope. I never changed. I still observe all the data. I am waiting for more info
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2014
Captain;

As you know i don't go down your route and "discuss" anything with particular poster.
I value my sanity.
However


16.5 years


not a trend
come back in another 13.5


The warmest year on the GISS data base is 2005 - following the last decent El Nino.
So that would make it 9 years.

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year."

http://data.giss....mp/2005/

Will be "interesting" when the warm ENSO phase kicks back in again won't it?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
@Uba
And here again, you prove you're the one obfuscating and moving the goalposts

&
But the standard English definition

the above quotes are the reasons that you are failing miserably to make your point.

For starters, you are using dictionary meanings for a word that has a specific normal definition in the climate sciences, as told to you already by Runrig (and Howhot).
If you are going to argue a point on a science site, you should take the time to read up a little
heck, I even verified it with the EPA directly

second: I have stuck with the same argument throughout the entire exchange between us. I have NOT changed it. Not once. And I can back that up with the posts.
I have always said you needed more data, longer trend times, and that warming has not stopped no matter how much you repeat it has until we have more data and longer trends

When the TREND reaches 30 yrs I will concede that there is a trend
until then, I will wait and watch the data
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2014
Will be "interesting" when the warm ENSO phase kicks back in again won't it?

@runrig
absolutely!
The warmest year on the GISS data base is 2005 - following the last decent El Nino.
So that would make it 9 years

i didnt think i had to be that nit-picky with Uba as i proved my point otherwise... but you know what, you are right!
as always!
i defer to your judgement and wisdom in this area as you are far more experienced

this bothers me too

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

I dont worry about Uba...
As long as i stick to my same argument, Uba will fail
it DOES get boring and repetitious though...

Thanks for the pointers runrig!

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
AGWites apparently think the population consists entirely of simpletons who should believe their every word, just because they say so.
Well if you are the typical example of "the population" then those "AGWites" are clearly correct.
OMG; You guys are freaks.
Like watching a train wreck, just can't stop looking for the next even stupider thing to be said!
As long as the solution to the problem involves transferring massive amounts of wealth from individuals to governments and the corporations that control them, I will remain a skeptic.
Didn't have to wait long!
As I've repeatedly shown, the globe stopped warming as much as 16.5 years ago, and multiple climate scientists are acknowledging this fact.
Followed by Uba playing more whack-a-mole.
Only in as much as you continue to lie.
and then his classic argument of "no I'm not, you are!".

Pretty much the same as we see on every article. Same zombie arguments, same claims of a socialist plot. Sad.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
I love to read the comments of the true Progressives here. You think that you are the puppeteers when you really are the puppets.

Since childhood your views have been molded by the state in order to turn you into useful idiots.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
Note how the AGWites here must bolster each other to ridicule
Too bad they don't spend more time bolstering their weak AGW theory.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2014
Note how the AGWites here must bolster each other to ridicule
Too bad they don't spend more time bolstering their weak AGW theory.
Better than quote mining and shrill claims of a socialist conspiracy.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
"For the past quarter-century, government and corporate efforts have plowed billions into the promotion and exploitation of the human-caused catastrophic global warming theory. The result has been higher taxes, greater deficits, higher prices, job loss and greater government control over our daily lives –
{aka: socialism, by design}
http://www.breitb...dvocates