Record Cold Cripples Food Crops: Future Food Security at Risk

by Vijay Jayaraj

Are we putting ourselves at risk by not weighing the risks of cold weather appropriately? And have we, out of our negligence, rendered the agricultural sector susceptible to disaster in the event of an unexpected cooling?

After an unusually cold spring and summer this year hampered crop growth across the Northern Hemisphere, costing farmers millions of dollars, the answer seems to be yes.

Most people understand that food crops are vulnerable to abnormal weather. However, fewer people understand that that crops are more sensitive to cold than to hot weather.

Most of the present-day focus has been focused on addressing the impact of heat on plants. As a consequence, we hardly address the hyper-sensitivity of food crops to cold weather.

Here is what we can deduct from the historical relationship between food crops and climate.

Cold Spells Death for Food Crops

Different plants need temperature to remain within particular ranges to grow well. It is a matter of utmost importance for farmers, whose livelihood depends on harvest returns. Developments in agricultural technology—such as drip irrigation and genetically edited, drought-resistant crops—has enabled farmers to adapt to extreme hot and drought conditions.

But little to no improvements have been made towards protecting crops from unusually cold temperatures. Before the warming craze took over the news media, cold weather was looked upon as an enemy of plant growth, especially for food crops.

In some temperate countries, this was common sense, as the cold climatic conditions there were and still are never suitable to grow certain economically important food crops. This was also a reality globally when cold climate in the past impacted agriculture worldwide.

The extent of damage that cold weather could have on our food crops was in full display during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that lasted roughly from the 14th through 18th centuries. The LIA brought agriculture to a standstill in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere and proved to be lethal enough to impact the entire human civilization.

The LIA was not the only period when the earth cooled down. Between 550 A.D. and 800 A.D, the relatively cold weather also proved to be a big challenge for empires across the globe.

Today, there few efforts to warn farmers about cold climatic phases (like the ones during the winter of 2017–18 and the frequent cooling events in the past two years).

If climate change is an issue of foremost importance, everybody ought to remember and discuss the most dangerous and destructive climate event of the past 2000 years, the LIA. But we hear nothing about this from our political leaders or our mainstream media.

One of the reasons for their unfathomable silence about the dangers of cooling may be due to the fact that it will force them to reveal the scientifically proven benefits of global warming on the growth of food crops.

Warming is Good, in Fact the Best

In contrast to cooling, global warming (as distinct from brief, local extreme heatwaves—which have not become more numerous or severe during the recent decades of global warming) has always helped plant growth, especially of species that are of importance to human civilization. Warming periods in the past always resulted in higher crop growth rates, decrease in crop failures, and subsequently caused food supplies to surge.

The Medieval Warm period (10th to 12th centuries A.D.) and the post LIA period (19th century A.D. to Present day) are known to be two of the most beneficial climate phases for the growth of human civilization.

Historian Charles Van Doren noted, “The three centuries, from about 1000 to about 1300, became one of the most optimistic, prosperous, and progressive periods in European history.” He was right about the Medieval Warm Period, which saw the farmers in Europe benefit immensely. It allowed cultivation of grapes in England and a thriving wine industry, like what we see in today’s France and Germany.

Climate change expert Dr. James Lovelock, a fellow of The Royal Society and winner of numerous globally acclaimed environmental awards, confirms that the warm climate has been beneficial for the planet.

He went a step further and commented that carbon dioxide emissions from human sources have actually helped us see off cold climate by contributing additional warming to the already active warming phase that began at the end of the LIA.

“It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age. … If we hadn’t appeared on the earth, it would be due to go through another ice age and we can look at our part as holding that up. … I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we’re doing”, said Dr. Lovelock soon after the Climategate scandal broke out in 2009.

Carbon Dioxide: An Ally of Warm Climate and Food Crops

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, in his document on the positive impacts of CO2, echoed the importance of understanding the varied impacts that cold climate and hot climate have on food crops, and the scientifically verified beneficial role played by CO2 alongside warm climate.

“The most dangerous change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own population,” said Moore, referring to the cold climatic phases.

In fact, it is estimated that increased CO2 concentrations, together with the increase in temperature levels, were responsible for a 14 percent increase in green vegetation over the past three decades and translated into an increase in farm incomes by $3 Trillion.

But it appears that our climatic system is in for a change.

A Potential Cooling Threat in Near Future

Climatologists have realized that there has been no significant warming during the past two decades. This led scientists to refocus their attention towards the influence of the sun on the earth’s climate.

The increasing consensus is that the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate is much greater than that from atmospheric greenhouse gas (CO2) concentrations. If this is indeed true, then we must prepare ourselves for crop damage from cold weather, as NASA has predicted the lowest sunspot activity for the next two decades.

If cold climate phases are the real destroyer of our crops and warmer climatic conditions have always aided farming, then our focus ought to be on cold climate. Instead of being obsessed with the warming narrative, those at international governing institutions like the United Nations should be preparing our farmers for cold weather, equipping the local administrative bodies with mechanisms to cope with such bad weather. Precious funds should be diverted towards research on adaptation to cold weather, rather than aimlessly spending on a warming panic among the masses.

Any neutral observer on climate change would readily approve the need to focus on cooling, especially when it has been the only major historically verified climate trend that is capable of destroying food crops at a significant scale.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Bangalore, India.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 24, 2019 10:15 am

I agree, cooling is much more ominous than the mild warming we have experienced.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 24, 2019 12:23 pm

In other words we should be emitting as much CO2 into the air as possible. Go China Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 24, 2019 1:17 pm

Alan

A few weeks ago China reversed their policy of banning at the national level, coal burning for domestic heating. It has been on the books for 3 years. It was impossible to implement.

Also of interest from that region is the news that China cleaned up their PM2.5 emissions so rapidly that it is clearing the skies, and the sunlight pouring through is creating ground level ozone on a big scale, leading to…greatly enhanced warming!

Sometimes you just can’t make thus stuff up. They are also promoting the use of non-woody biomass as a fuel to replace coal. This is bringing with it a lot more nitrogen dioxide (NO). The fire also creates 2-10% NO2 to go with it (expressed as a % of the NOx total).

I witnessed some testing of combustion in standard domestic stoves using high N fuels like fruit tree clippings. That has about 10 times the N of typical wood. The NO emissions were about 3.5 times the mandated max emission factor. That NO goes to NO2 in the sunlight, and uses other ingredients like HO2 and VOC’s to create ground level ozone, so it appears that the local warming will continue.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-china-hot-ground-level-ozone-pollution.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/2/422.full.pdf

Vijay
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 25, 2019 5:40 am

Thanks Crispin for this info

Bill Powers
July 24, 2019 10:26 am

Climate Change is a Global Political Movement orchestrated to transfer money and power. This next cold snap will be repackaged by the purveyors of propaganda in order to continue this movement and they can because they control the message boards.

markl
Reply to  Bill Powers
July 24, 2019 11:05 am

“…and they can because they control the message boards…” That they do but they can’t control reality and it’s catching up to them. People are only gullible in the short term.

Sheri
Reply to  markl
July 24, 2019 12:41 pm

People are gullible always and have been throughout their entire tenure on this earth. One may have to swap out the con, but people can always be conned and scare tactics are time-honored, highly successful method. I see no reason why the scientists can’t suddenly say cold is coming and it’s CO2 at fault. At least half the population, if not more, will just blindly follow.

Eric Stevens
Reply to  markl
July 24, 2019 3:05 pm

A problem with climate change of any kind is that it plays out in time periods much longer than the span of one generation. In consequence the reality of the current climate always tends to be regarded as normal by all but possibly the older generations. Humans don’t generally live sufficiently long to personally experience true climate change.

commieBob
July 24, 2019 11:04 am

Some of the people in charge of watching the climate have a serious CAGW bias. They won’t believe cooling when they see it. They’ll just adjust the data so it fits their preconceived notion of what it should be. When the climate starts cooling they will continue to ring the CAGW alarm bells.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  commieBob
July 24, 2019 12:22 pm

Is there any reason to think that the climate will start cooling anytime soon?
Would you be willing to bet that the climate at the start of next century will be
cooler than this at present?

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 1:19 pm

Willing to bet? Absolutely. I bet my live that the climate at the start of the next century will be cooler than the present.

Conceptual betting is the foundation of Bayesian Inference and Probability.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 1:24 pm

Izaak

I think it will not be cooler, but it won’t be much warmer. There are 80 years to go, so the cold spell might be over by then. However it is probably correct that by 2600 it will be heading down inexorably.

Remember, cooling precedes a drop in CO2. That may be because CO2 is a cooling agent (radiative cooling). Perhaps that is why it lags temperature by 800 years. If the temperature stops rising, CO2 continues to subtract heat from the system. At some point the system cools and after some time, the CO2 level drops. As it does, there is still enough cooling ability to drive the temperature down a little more, leading to lower temperatures, and CO2 getting absorbed into the oceans. When the temperature bottoms out, the CO2 is eventually absorbed to some lower limit, and the warming starts again. This rather neatly explains why CO2 lags temperatures throughout the proxy record of the past 3m years. It is a GHG so it adds cooling capacity to the atmosphere, and is also absorbable into the oceans. Neat.

Steve O
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 24, 2019 2:15 pm

Can you imagine if measured CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere declined, while man-made emissions from energy production continued to increase?

That would pop the thought bubble.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Steve O
July 24, 2019 8:38 pm

No Steve, the climate liars will assert that it was wind and solar wot did it. If natural cooling happens concurrently, maybe the yellow vests can bring back the guillotine.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 24, 2019 2:50 pm

I see what you are saying, Crispin, CO2 as a radiative gas sends heat to outer space, so is a “cooling agent” of the non-radiative N2/O2 atmosphere in that sense. But CO2 basically radiates at the temperature of the atmosphere in which the CO2 molecule resides, which is a lower temperature intermediate between Earth surface temperature and outer space. So one would generally assume that the surface would be cooler if the surface could radiate directly to outer space, without the intermediate temperature greenhouse gases “blocking the view” of cold outer space, in accordance with basic SB calculations.
I will go out on a limb and say that I think there are enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and enough “layers” where IR is absorbed and reemitted at that layer’s temperature, that adding a few hundred ppm of CO2 only affects how much heat radiates from the upper troposphere layers to outer space. But half up and half down means no net difference over less than geological time periods….
OK have at me, all radiative GHE wonks….

philincalifornia
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 24, 2019 8:40 pm

There is no empirical data to suggest that you are wrong, and yes, I know about Feldman et al.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
July 24, 2019 5:21 pm

Crispin,
What cold spell? It is warmer now that it has been since the start of
satellite records and for much longer depending on which temperature
record you want to believe. And while in the past CO2 levels might have
lagged temperatures that it not the case currently since we are adding to
the atmospheric level every year. There is no indication that CO2 levels
are going to drop any time soon — unless you believe in the ridiculous
predictions that humans are going to stop using fossil fuels any time soon.

commieBob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 1:56 pm

Given the state of the AMO and the PDO, it’s reasonable to think that there may be some cooling coming. link

I’d bet a cup of coffee that the 2030s will be cooler than it is now.

philincalifornia
Reply to  commieBob
July 24, 2019 8:42 pm

Careful, although unlikely, the climate liars may still have control of the “data”.

Loydo
Reply to  commieBob
July 24, 2019 8:45 pm

“And now, as of late 2008, it looks like we might have entered into a new, negative (cooling) phase of the PDO. Only time will tell whether this pattern persists.”

Roy Spencer.

Your link is five years old. Since then the hottest five years are the last five and no surprise 2019 to date is vying for top 2 or 3 spot too. Bob, warming is accelerating.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/48/12/1880-2019?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1880&lasttrendyear=2019

Reply to  Loydo
July 25, 2019 7:03 pm

More alarmist nonsense from Loydo – most sensible people use UAH LT temperatures, not surface temperatures.

There is an apparent warming bias in surface temperatures.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979

There is nothing special or alarming about global temperatures of the past five years – note the slow recovery from a major El Nino that peaked in early 2016.

Here is the data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

More detailed data is here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Gamecock
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 4:20 pm

Holy smokes! What definition of climate are you using? What does “the climate” mean???

Did you know that South Carolina has a different climate than Ohio?

beng135
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 25, 2019 7:08 am

Is there any reason to think that the climate will start cooling anytime soon?

You don’t feel climate. That isan abstraction — you only feel weather right where you’re at. And yes, it cooled dramatically here last night — 52F (11C) this morning in the warmest (average) week of the yr.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 25, 2019 8:53 am

Izaak: How about cooling now?
Global air temperatures track the Nino34 area SST’s about 4 months later.

The Nino areas are shown here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst/
The Nino3.4 area extends from 120-170 degrees West, and +/- 5 degrees N/S of the equator.

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/index.html

Here are Pacific Ocean temperature contours since January 2019:
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image

Click the above downwards in succession and you will see the westward progression of the “cold tongue” across the tropical Pacific.

Note the “cold tongue” extending west into the equatorial Pacific through July 2019.
comment image

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 25, 2019 9:13 am

Re the effect of cool wet weather on crops – posted June 1, 2019:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/01/trump-allows-for-expanded-ethanol-sales-as-chinese-tariffs-squeeze-farmers/#comment-2715495

Philo wrote:
“The bad weather in the midwest is looking like a major threat to corn production.”

Thank you Philo – I’ve been reading about this bad planting weather in the midwest this year.

As I recall, there was a very late Spring in the midwest last year , but the excellent summer weather made up for that.

Could these be early signs of the imminent global cooling that I (we) predicted in my Calgary Herald article published 1Sept2002?

I hope not! I’m getting old and hate the cold!

Best, Allan

beng135
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 26, 2019 8:58 am

Allan, I despise those color-biased charts. Much better (more realistic) anomaly-colors are here:

https://vortex.plymouth.edu/sfc/sst/anomaly.html

Jireland1992
July 24, 2019 11:05 am

Has anyone seen the new stating anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented. Might be worth discussing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49086783

rbabcock
Reply to  Jireland1992
July 24, 2019 12:14 pm

Maybe you can reconcile the BBC graph with this one:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2019_v6.jpg

Izaak Walton
Reply to  rbabcock
July 24, 2019 5:32 pm

That is simple. The BBC graph shows warming rates in terms of degrees per century and
states that rates over 0.5 degrees per century have never been seen in temperature record.
Dr. Spencer’s graph shows a warming rate of 0.13 per decade since 1979 which equates to
1.3 degrees per century and agrees well with the rate in the BBC graph.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 7:04 pm

As has been explained to you many times before, the proxy record doesn’t resolve down fine enough to make such definitive statements.

PS, using a short record to make long range predictions is a fool’s errand, and there are a lot of fools eager to do it.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jireland1992
July 24, 2019 12:20 pm

We have been discussing these lies for many years, on a daily basis.
This is hardly news.
It is fake news, completely unscientific, baseless, and just plain wrong.
Erasing historical data and penciling in new numbers is not science, it is called fraud.
Fearmongering is not science nor is it responsible. It is in fact infantile at best and psychotic at worst, depending on the educational level of who is running around screaming about doomsday.
Pretending that on a planet in a warm spell within an ice age, on which a huge portion of the surface is a perpetually frozen wasteland with hellishly fatal cold, 24/7/365, and with an even larger portion f the surface similarly deadly on a seasonal basis, is a thing to be fear, rather than celebrated, is pure jackassery.
In fact anyone looking critically and analytically at the situation can see that such fears are baseless and completely unwarranted. Nothing whatso ever unusual is occurring with the weather, but if it were, we should hope for unusual warmth rather than unusual cold.
Warmth is life, and cold is death.
And the boogey man in this newfound religion of doom, the trace gas CO2, just happens to be the molecule upon which our entire biosphere is constructed, and it is critically and dangerously low by any objective historical standard.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Jireland1992
July 24, 2019 1:30 pm
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Jireland1992
July 25, 2019 3:40 am

ah! abc aus radio jumped on the bandwagon today on this
warmest evah…or in the last 2k years they reckoned
hmm med warm periods gone again?

tom0mason
Reply to  Jireland1992
July 27, 2019 7:46 pm

Jireland1992,
“…anthropogenic global warming is unprecedented.”

Firstly the extreme past (before the last 200 years) will not have the resolution on global temperatures as the recent instrumentation temperature records, as they are mostly derived from proxy samplings converted to temperature by whatever approximate method employed.
Secondly this planet was (arguably) ending the LIA by 1850, and since that time instrumental temperature records have been getting more wide spread and more precise by the decade right up to the present day.
Thirdly, in the intervening period from 1850 up to today the planet has only warmed by about 1°C. IMO that is not rapid, unprecedented, or outside the bounds of natural variation.

Why 1850(?) because that is when the UN-IPCC says the industrial revolution started and the climate system was degraded by human activities. (See here for how ‘stable the weather/climate of the 1850 were https://www.iceagenow.info/lets-have-weather-like-its-the-1850s/ )

Pretty graph though from …
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/artwork/logo-fun/bbc-greenpeace-med.gif

Robert W Turner
July 24, 2019 11:23 am

If only it were true that we are staving off the next glacial period, but we’re not.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 24, 2019 12:09 pm

Perhaps we’ll not be able to “stave off the next glacial period”, but the single greatest impact mankind can make to ensure Life continues on Earth is to increase atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

CO2 is the life-blood of Life.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 24, 2019 8:48 pm

True, and we can use nuclear to blast more CO2 into the atmosphere. Plus, I’m sure that when the time comes, it will be relatively simple to put reflectors into space to target more of the suns rays towards us poor medieval souls, for what it’s worth.

Eric Barnes
July 24, 2019 11:27 am

Prepare for the massive narrative shift in 3… 2… 1…

rbabcock
July 24, 2019 11:31 am

We have come a long way in growing crops inside. Probably kickstarted by the Marijuana growers back in the 60’s and 70’s, but growing multiple seasons of a single crop like tomatoes or lettuce in a year is becoming more commonplace. This will be a saving grace if the growing seasons get too short in the North.

This year the US corn crop is in trouble due to mostly the early cold, then the record rains again probably due to the persistent cold interfacing with the warm air in the South. There is a “last plant date” for most crops where going past it sets you up to a likely killing frost/freeze before they are mature. Guess we might be eating more of the corn crop this year than burning it in our automobiles.

Reply to  rbabcock
July 24, 2019 5:54 pm

IMAGINE what one could do *if* one had a supply of electricity at a cost under 2 cents per kWh, 24/7/365.25

One could do it now by locating near a nuclear plant (skipping the cost of HV transmission line and required ancillary equipment and associated costs).

And – in the not too-distant future, using new tech on the horizon (BUT not wind, NOT solar nor Thorium reactors.)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  rbabcock
July 24, 2019 6:34 pm

rbabcock,

“This will be a saving grace if the growing seasons get too short in the North.”

I wouldn’t worry overmuch about this. According to my 17 year temperature record (every 5 minutes, 24/7) maximum temperatures are going down in the central US while minimum temperatures are going up. This can be verified by looking at cooling-day and warming-day data as well.

It wasn’t early cold that hurt the planting here, it *was* the rain that prevented planting. The ground thawed plenty early for planting. Even with late planting, the soybeans and corn look very good at this point, probably because of good subsoil moisture content. The big problem is the land that didn’t get planted at all because of the rain.

Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 11:32 am

Given that crops are at risk from unusually cold weather it is a good thing that June was the
hottest June on record, there is presently a heat wave in Europe and this July is set to the hottest
month ever recorded. Despite what Vijay appears to think the world is getting warmer and has
been doing so all this century. It is also almost certain to continue to get warmer as CO2 emissions
continue to rise.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:28 pm

Doing so all this century?
No.
Neither was this true of the last century.
Thankfully, there has been a fitful warming trend for a part of the past 140 years, although it is far smaller of a trend than the climate liars want people to think.
Only an idiot thinks that altering the historical climate records, and inventing fake numbers for large portions of the globe that were never measured, both in the past and at present, means that the past periods of hotter weather were never recorded.
BTW, you seem to have neglected to mention that in between the early July warm weather and the current warm spell in Europe (only parts), there was a sustained and widespread cold spell that brought record smashing mid-Summer frost to places like Saxony.
And right now the middle and Eastern US is having a record breaking days long spell of cool weather for the dates.

Ve2
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:36 pm

Can you provide one raw data set that proves warming.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Ve2
July 24, 2019 2:13 pm

Ve2,
Every data set shows global warming. The UAH satellite data is at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2019_v6.jpg
and that shows clear warming from 1979 to 2019. GISS data can be seen at
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/customize.html
which again shows long term warming from 1900 onwards. Berkley Earth ‘s Data is at
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

And even this blog stated inMarch that the global warming trend was 0.13 degrees per decade
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/03/global-temperature-report-march-2019/

In contrast can you find me a single data set that shows that the temperature in the
five year period 2014 to 2019 was colder than the five year period 2000-2005?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 2:52 pm

Izaak,

It would cost me too much money to get access to the cooling-day data older than 36 months.

But I have given you data showing that June, 2019 was *not* hotter than June, 2018 from a few points around the globe.

I have to continue to point out that the UAH data is an AVERAGE! It simply tells you nothing about how warm, i.e. how high the maximum temperatures have reached. The average can go up because the minimum temps have gone up while the maximum temps have gone down!

The minimum temps going up extends growing seasons. It is a *good* thing.

The number of cooling-days going down means the maximum temps have gone down. That is also a good thing. Most grains suffer when maximum temps go over 90degF.

You need to come up with something else to prove your conjectures.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:37 pm

You don’t even know if the “warming” is due to hotter maximum temperatures or warmer minimum temperatures.

Higher minimum temperatures are *good*. It extends the growing season.

And how do you know July is going to be the hottest on record? Here in the center of the continental US the past week has seen highs in the low 80’s and lows in 60’s. That is *way* colder than typical for late July!

That cold front has extended through much of the continental US. Now I realize the US alone isn’t “global” but the US temperatures *do* have a significant impact.

Wharfplank
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 2:54 pm

And who shall take the Earth’s temperature?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:38 pm

Did you happen to look at anything but the hot anomalies on the map? If you zoom out some you’ll see that the cold anomalies closely offset the warm anomalies. Record high temperatures nowadays are where local conditions permit due to UHI. Look up where they occur.
The world didn’t get warmer this century until the El Nino of ’15-’16. Look it up.
The oceans are the heat sink for this planet, not the atmosphere (score: Water-99.9%, air-0.7%)
How did one additional CO2 molecule in every 10,000 of dry atmosphere heat the oceans up in 30 years time?
Stick around and soak up some facts if you’re brave enough to be a heretic and not just a sock puppet errand boy.

Loydo
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:43 pm

“Climatologists have realized that there has been no significant warming during the past two decades.”

Back down the rabbit burrow with Vijay.

TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
July 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Do not worry about it.
He also wrote:

need to focus on cooling, especially when it has been the only major historically verified climate trend that is capable of destroying food crops at a significant scale.

It seems our agricultural expert has never heard of droughts. Or perhaps he has a special understanding that drought does not hurt crops.

Of course he may be right about that “no significant warming” bit. He is talking about agriculture, and 0.2 deg over two decades will have exactly no effect on crops in the field.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
July 24, 2019 4:18 pm

Other than the big spike caused by the recent and now fading El Nino, there has been no significant warming for the last two decades.

Why do you have so much trouble dealing with reality?

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  MarkW
July 24, 2019 5:25 pm
MarkW
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 24, 2019 7:05 pm

Not when all of it comes from an El Nino spike.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 24, 2019 8:54 pm

Mark,
by now not much of the trend came from the El nino spike. Temperatures went up and down over 2015-2016 but they have continued to climb since then.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
July 24, 2019 5:40 pm

Mark,
How do you define “significant warming”? All global temperature records show
warming in excess of about 0.1 degrees per decade. The UAH satellite record for
example has a warming rate of 0.13 degrees per decade. Does that count as significant?

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 7:06 pm

I explained it already. I’m not surprised that you and Donald have failed to get the point.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 8:08 pm

MarkW you have explained nothing.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:43 pm

Good ! Warm is much better than cold ! 😉

Loydo
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 24, 2019 11:04 pm

Unless you live in an already hot zone. Then it is much worse.

Sheri
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:44 pm

Hottest ever recorded if you believe the adjusted hype. Not in the REAL world though.

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 12:51 pm

Nothing you said is true.

Drake
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 1:09 pm

LOL, True believer. Hottest evah!

After the recent posts showing the all time state high temperature records from the 1930s and posts regarding modification of old data by lowering the temperatures in the 30s by NOAA, you still believe NOAA for their pronouncements of HOTTEST EVAH?

Some people cannot learn, but when it is a belief system (religion) what can one expect.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Keep believing that Mr. Walton and one day you may be appointed to the AGW priesthood for your faith. For everybody else here is some real data from the USDA Weekly National Agricultural Summary:

Corn: Thirty-five percent of the nation’s corn acreage was at
or beyond the silking stage by July 21, forty-three percentage
points behind last year and 31 points behind the 5-year
average.

Soybean: By July 21, forty percent of the nation’s soybean
acreage had reached the blooming stage, 36 percentage points
behind last year and 26 points behind the 5-year average.

Winter Wheat: Sixty-nine percent of the 2019 winter wheat
acreage was harvested by July 21, ten percentage points behind
both last year and the 5-year average.

Sorghum: By July 21, twenty-seven percent of the nation’s
sorghum acreage had reached the heading stage, 13 percentage
points behind both last year and the 5-year average.

Rice: By July 21, thirty-one percent of the nation’s rice
acreage had reached the heading stage, 13 percentage points
behind last year and 12 points behind the 5-year average.

Much of North America is in a serious deficit for growing degree days this year. In simple minded terms for Mr. Walton — it’s been too cold and too wet. If we have an early fall frost we could see a serious rise in commodity prices.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Bill Murphy
July 24, 2019 2:17 pm

Bill,
Nowhere did I claim that the USA was warmer than average. I stated that the global
temperature was warmer than average. It is possible for the USA to be colder than
usual and for the global temperature to be increasing.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 2:33 pm

Izaak,

Where on the globe was it the warmest ever in June, 2019? Give me some cities so I can look up their cooling-day data!

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 4:19 pm

Every place with no thermometers is showing record heat.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 5:45 pm

Tim,
Look at European records for June. It was apparently more than 3 degrees
warmer than the long term average.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 6:25 pm

Izaak,

“Look at European records for June. It was apparently more than 3 degrees warmer than the long term average.”

Again, the AVERAGE is meaningless. I have a series of 5 numbers that averages 6. The average changes from 6 to 6.2. Can you tell me what changed in the series of numbers to cause the average to go up?

(note: Europe *is* seeing a very warm June. But apparently that’s not the case in the US, and at least in part of South America and Africa. That’s a *lot* of land area that is not seeing the “warmest” June ever when compared to the land area that is)

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 7:07 pm

3 degrees warmer than average? So freaking what? Year to year variance of much more than that is quite common.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 7:56 pm

Tim asks: “Can you tell me what changed in the series of numbers to cause the average to go up?”
..
The sum of the five numbers changed from 30 to 31.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 25, 2019 4:59 am

Donald,

“The sum of the five numbers changed from 30 to 31.”

And what exactly caused the sum to go up?

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 8:06 pm

MarkW: ” Year to year variance of much more than that is quite common.”
..
Please provide a link to data to back up your assertion

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 4:56 pm

RE: “Nowhere did I claim that the USA was warmer than average. I stated that the global
temperature was warmer than average.”

You first have to define “average”. The actual, un-tampered with data shows much of the 1930’s hotter than now and much of the 1970’s as colder. Historical accounts clearly show global heatwaves that killed thousands in the mid 30’s and global cold that was also deadly and also damaged crops in many parts of the world in the 70’s. Are glaciers melting now? Yes. But as they melt they are revealing archaeological sites and tree stumps from forests and villages that thrived and grew there during the RWP and MWP. There are no forests or villages there now. Maybe in a few hundred years. Or not. In the 1930’s the popular press and academic journals were full of articles about melting glaciers and an ice free Arctic ocean. In the 1970’s they were full of articles about the coming ice age. You should acquire a little historical perspective. You might sleep better at night after the AGW boogie man leaves your world.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Bill Murphy
July 25, 2019 1:49 am

Hi Bill,
There is no such thing as “actual un-tampered data” when it comes to global
averages. Constructing a global average involves a lot of data processing,
extrapolation etc. That current estimates of global temperatures are different
from previous ones does not mean that the current ones are wrong. You need
to show that and demonstrate why. The Berkeley earth project for example started
with a similar belief and when they re-analysed the data found that there was no
significant difference to other reconstructions.

If you want to claim that current reconstructions are wrong then the emphasis needs
to be on you providing a clear rationale for your assertion and then demonstrate a new
method that provides a better estimate. The raw data from all the temperature stations are available online and you are free to make your reconstructions. But unless you do that nobody would have any rational reason to believe you.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 2:30 pm

Where was June the hottest month?

From the Topeka, KS AFB
5 year average for June cooling-day = 390
June, 2016
June, 2017 359
June, 2018 456
June, 2019 314

5 year average for July cooling-days = 454
July, 2016 487
July, 2017 491
July, 2018 458
July, 2019

From the San Antonio, TX International Airport
5 year average cooling-days for June = 513
June, 2016
June, 2017 514
June, 2018 585
June, 2019 475

From Boston KBOS
5 year average cooling-days for June = 144
June, 2016
June, 2017 193
June, 2018 150
June, 2019 126

Sure looks like June, 2019 was *not* the hottest month for much of the US.

Are there some other cities you would like me to provide data for?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 2:46 pm

Izaak,

BTW, here’s the data for Bejing, CN

Bejing, CN Station ZBAA
5 year average for June = 382
June, 2016
June, 2017 389
June, 2018 449
June, 2019 426

Looks like last year was hotter than this year!

I still don’t know where NASA thinks it is hotter this year than last year!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 4:56 pm

Possibly because they look at the whole planet, not just a few cities. Also because they count all days not just those over a certain temperature.

By the way, it’s not just NASA who say it – every data set so far released, UAH, RSS, BEST, NOAA show this June as being warmer than last year, and all but one show it as being the warmest June on record (with one showing it as the second warmest).

As to where on the globe NASA thinks it was warmer, eyeballing their maps shows much of south and central America, Europe, Africa, Greenland, and Alaska as being warmer. And then there’s the oceans which were mostly warmer.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 24, 2019 6:15 pm

Bellman,

“Possibly because they look at the whole planet, not just a few cities. Also because they count all days not just those over a certain temperature.”

If you are going to talk about a month being the “HOTTEST” then you better be talking about the maximum temperatures. And cooling-day values give you exactly that! The cooling-day database *does* count all days in a month!

And if the *globe* is seeing the hottest June ever then *some* cities should be seeing the same. I still want to know which cities those are. Do you know?

“UAH, RSS, BEST, NOAA show this June as being warmer than last year”

Those all show the AVERAGE being warmer. But as I keep pounding out the AVERAGE is meaningless. You don’t know if the average went up because maximums went up, minimums went up, or if it was because of a combination. Cooling-day values indicate that it is not due to maximum temperatures so it must because of minimum temperatures.

If the *average* went up because of higher minimums then that is a GOOD thing. It means extended growing seasons, more food, and less loss of life due to cold nighttime temperatures.

“As to where on the globe NASA thinks it was warmer, eyeballing their maps shows much of south and central America, Europe, Africa, Greenland, and Alaska as being warmer”

Let’s look at South America: Santa Rosa in Argentina, specifically the airport. The 5 year average shows June with an average of 1 cooling-days.

June, 2016
June, 2017 0
June, 2018 0
June, 2019 1

Probably not the warmest June ever there either since it right at the average!

Europe is certainly having a warm June.

Let’s look at Ibadan, Nigeria. 5 year cooling-day average for June = 444
June, 2017 454
June, 2018 433
June, 2019 430

So at least part of Africa is actually below average instead of seeing the “warmest” June ever.

” And then there’s the oceans which were mostly warmer.”

No, they aren’t warming. The Pacific ocean is cooling and so is the Atlantic.

So, what data can you give us showing that *maximum* temperatures are going up, not just the average!

goldminore
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 24, 2019 8:59 pm

Here is an interesting cold spot, and one which is important to the bigger picture as to the direction of the climate, imo. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-69.02,57.24,1107/loc=-60.839,60.333

In the last 48 hours that cold spot in Hudson Bay expanded quite a bit. Note how almost the entirety of the Great Lakes is now well below average in temps. Two days ago only around 1/3rd of the lakes were below average. Looking back at previous years shows a steady cooling over this region over the last 4 years.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 25, 2019 3:35 am

As I understand the concept, cooling days are based on mean temperature, not maximum. And they don’t count all days, only those where the average is above some arbitrary value.

If you are going to insist that only maximum temps count we have a probl, because the only data people here trust is satellite data and that doesn’t see maximums.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 25, 2019 6:45 am

Bellman,

Using mean temperature is one way of calculating degree-days. But it’s an older method. Following are excerpts from the degree-days.net web site on how they calculate degree-days.

———————————————————————-
On July 6th, colder weather started moving in: the temperature was 16C from 00:00 to 06:00, 15C from 06:00 to 12:00, 14C from 12:00 to 18:00, and 13C from 18:00 to 24:00. This gives the following:

(1 degree * 0.25 days) + (2 degrees * 0.25 days) + (3 degrees * 0.25 days) + (4 degrees * 0.25 days)
= 2.5 heating degree days on July 6th

Now, on July 7th, the temperature just kept changing… like it might on a real day… Between 00:00 and 00:30 it was 13C, between 00:30 and 01:00 it was 12.9C, between 01:00 and 01:30 it was 12.9C, between 01:30 and 02:00 it was 12.8C… it started getting warmer around 05:00, peaking at 17C between 14:00 and 14:30, and dropping again until it reached about 13.7C between 23:30 and 24:00. Complicated!

A proper calculation would not make for particularly interesting reading, so I’ll leave most of it out. But essentially you just have to add up the figures for each of the half-hour periods in the day (one half-hour period is 1/48 days):

(3 degrees * 1/48 days) + (3.1 degrees * 1/48 days) + ……. etc.
= 1.9 heating degree days on July 7th
———————————————————————-

——————————————————–
The problem with that approach is that, in the real world, outside air temperature doesn’t remain constant – in fact it changes pretty much all the time. Mathematically speaking you’d need an infinite number of temperature readings to calculate degree days properly.

Fortunately, “mathematically speaking” doesn’t really matter too much in this instance, and half-hourly or hourly temperature readings are plenty good enough to calculate degree days accurately using the method described above.
————————————————————-

This is how they do heating-days but doing the cooling-day calculations are the same. So the number of cooling-days (per day) does depend on how high the temperatures get. As maximum temperatures go up the more the contribution to the cooling-day count.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 25, 2019 6:49 am

Bellman,

I forgot to note that absolutely not all days are counted. But to track maximum temperatures you don’t need to count all days. You only need to count the days where the temperature exceeds a base temperature. If you are only interested in what is happening to maximum temperatures then only look at the days where maximum temperatures are involved.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 25, 2019 3:32 pm

Tim Gorman,

Fair enough, but cooling-days still aren’t showing you maximum temperature records.

However, I have now checked with BEST max and min data, and this year was not the hottest on record for maximum, or for that matter minimum, temperatures, but it was still pretty hot with no indication of any cooling. Indeed, the anomaly for June 2019 highs was 1.107°C, which is slightly higher than the mean anomaly for June 2019.

I think for max temperature June 2016 was about 6th warmest, but all the top Junes are very close.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 25, 2019 3:36 pm

Tim Gorman,

If you still want an example of a high June 2019 cooling day city, try Berlin.

Berlin-Tegel, DE

5 year average for June = 107

June, 2017 105

June, 2018 133

June, 2019 227

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 25, 2019 4:15 pm

Bellman,

Europe *is* having a hot summer. I already pointed that out. But it is an indication of *weather*, not climate. If it was climate then the US and China, both in the northern hemisphere would be seeing the same phenomenon and they aren’t! They are seeing a cooler summer based on June results.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 25, 2019 5:59 pm

You asked

And if the *globe* is seeing the hottest June ever then *some* cities should be seeing the same. I still want to know which cities those are. Do you know?

I didn’t realize you were excluding Europe.

OK, lets try San José in Costa Rica, Juan Santamaria Airport to be precise.

5 year average: 223
June, 2017 211
June, 2018 218
June, 2019 240

You then point out this is weather not climate. I agree, but if you can show that the climate is cooling so some evidence. Climate usually means the average over 30 years. Your comment

If it was climate then the US and China, both in the northern hemisphere would be seeing the same phenomenon and they aren’t!

is just wrong. A few months of cooler temperature in a couple of places does not mean the climate isn’t warming.

Your examples of individual city’s cooling-days doesn’t give any indication of climate as they are only compared with the average over the last 5 years.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 25, 2019 6:52 pm

The claim was that June, 2019 was the hottest ever on Earth. I disagree with that claim. It is based on an *average* which can’t tell you whether maximums went up, minimums went up, or a combination of the two.

The cooling-day records from around the globe (admittedly a very small sample) that I looked at makes the claim about June, 2019 being the “hottest” ever dubious at best. June, 2019 may have had the hottest *average* temperature ever but we can’t tell if that is good or bad because we don’t know what actually happened to make the average go up!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 26, 2019 5:45 am

The claim was that this June was the hottest or second hottest in the history of several data sets, as defined by the average temperature. This in turn was used to counter the claim that there had been no significant warming in the 21st century, presumably also based on average temperatures.

You haven’t really disagreed with this claim, but have just insisted that only maximum temperatures are dangerous and that warmer minimums are good. You’ve then looked at individual cities and cooling-day metrics to suggest maximum temperatures were rising. The implication of this would be that minimums are rising more, which you consider a good thing and which would also counter the claim of the head post.

You also asked for examples where cooling-days increased this year, but when I’ve given a couple of examples you say that doesn’t prove anything. I’d agree because I think it’s a silly metric to use and because you can tell little about global temperatures by looking at individual cities.

Instead I present BEST’s maximum and minimum global temperatures, and agree that this does not show June as being the hottest June on record either for max or min, but does show both as being very warm.

You say you want to look at global climate rather than weather. Good, lets use BEST to do that. They also give 20 year averages and we can see that as of June 2019 the average maximum temperature over the last 20 years was 0.984°C above the 1951 – 1980 average, whilst the average minimum was 0.993°C. Only about a hundredth of a degree difference.

The average maximum anomaly 10 years ago was 0.681°C. (This is the average for the 20 years centered on June 1999, compared with the 20 years centered on June 2009). That’s an average warming of over 0.3°C in 10 years.

The 20 year average ten years ago for minimum temperatures was 0.740°C, so a slightly smaller rise. But it seems clear that both maximum and minimum temperatures have risen significantly over the 2st century.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 26, 2019 2:16 pm

Bellman,

“You haven’t really disagreed with this claim”

I totally disagree with the claim that the Earth is turning into a cinder which is what the AGW alarmists are preaching. The *average* temperature going up does nothing to validate that claim.

“The implication of this would be that minimums are rising more, which you consider a good thing and which would also counter the claim of the head post.”

If averages are going up it is obviously because minimum temperatures are going up. And that *is* a good thing. If is one of the contributing factors to four out of the past six years having consecutive record grain harvests on a global basis. It certainly isn’t because of maximum temperatures going up because high temperatures suppress grain production.

“but when I’ve given a couple of examples you say that doesn’t prove anything.”

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I said that so much of the globe seeing lower cooling-days outweighs Europe having a heat wave. That’s two totally different things.

“I’d agree because I think it’s a silly metric to use and because you can tell little about global temperatures by looking at individual cities.”

The data I used was mostly from airports near the cities listed. Those sites provide consistent readings at the very least, even if their absolute values can be questioned. Cities *are* part of the global climate and, in my experience at least, if it not very often that the rural environment outside of the cities are warmer than the cities. Thus if the airports near cities are showing that June of this year was cooler than last year it is highly likely that the rural areas around those cities are also cooler this year than last.

“average maximum temperature over the last 20 years was 0.984°C above the 1951 – 1980 average”

And what about the 1920’s through 1940’s. When those temperatures are added to the mix, our maximum temperatures today are actually lower.

“he average maximum anomaly”

How many times do I have to repeat that averages tell you absolutely nothing about what is going on in the real world. If I tell you I have two sets of five numbers whose average is 6 and their average both go up to 6.2 can you tell me which values changed in each of the data sets?

If you can’t then of what use is the average value in determining what is happening?

“But it seems clear that both maximum and minimum temperatures have risen significantly over the 2st century.”

Cooling-day data disputes that claim.

For Dallas as an example, the only recent year to have five months with 100degF days was in 2006. No year since has had five months with 100degF days. The second most recent was 1998.

Let’s look at McAlester, OK.

The year with the most days of 100degF was 2011 with 28. The next highest was 2006 with 14. 2016, 2017, and 2018 had 1, 0, and 4 respectively. This data is from the National Weather Service in Tulsa, OK.

My own data from east central KS shows the same thing. And it *does* track with the cooling-day data. It only emphasizes how “average” temperatures truly tell you nothing. Assuming that average temperatures going up means the earth is going to turn into a cinder and we need to abandon all fossil fuels is the height of mathematical ignorance.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 26, 2019 6:02 am

I should add that the BEST max and min data are land only.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 26, 2019 5:51 pm

Bellman,

look here: wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/30/analysis-of-new-nasa-airs-study-80-of-u-s-warming-has-been-at-night/

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 26, 2019 6:10 pm

I totally disagree with the claim that the Earth is turning into a cinder which is what the AGW alarmists are preaching.

Strawman much? Nobody in this thread has said anything other than last month was one of the warmest Junes on record, and that this put Vijay Jayaraj’s comments about no significant warming over the last two decades into perspective.

It is one of the contributing factors to four out of the past six years having consecutive record grain harvests on a global basis. It certainly isn’t because of maximum temperatures going up because high temperatures suppress grain production.

You really seem to be disagreeing with the author of this post. He claims temperatures are not going up, and is very insistent that warmth is best for crops, with no exception made for maximum temperatures.

And what about the 1920’s through 1940’s. When those temperatures are added to the mix, our maximum temperatures today are actually lower.

Not according to the BEST data. The 20 year average TMAX anomaly covering that period was around -0.04°C.

How many times do I have to repeat that averages tell you absolutely nothing about what is going on in the real world.

You can repeat it as often as you like, it won’t make it true. Averages can tell you a lot about the real world, not everything but a lot.

If I tell you I have two sets of five numbers whose average is 6 and their average both go up to 6.2 can you tell me which values changed in each of the data sets?

No, but I can tell you that some of the numbers must have changed, that some must have gone up, and that the sum of the increases was 1 more than the sum of the decreases.

Cooling-day data disputes that claim.

You realize cooling-day data is effectively an average? All you have is the sum of temperatures above an arbitrary value.

More importantly, you haven’t used the data to dispute the claim that maximum and minimum temperatures have risen over the 21st century. All you’ve shown is that a few cities had more cooling-days than the previous year. Unless you are going to compare every city with the cooling-days at the start of the century I don’t see how you can dispute the claim.

For Dallas as an example, the only recent year to have five months with 100degF days was in 200

You don’t think averages can tell you anything, but counting months with a day above an arbitrary value in a single city does?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 27, 2019 8:37 am

“Strawman much? Nobody in this thread has said anything other than last month was one of the warmest Junes on record, and that this put Vijay Jayaraj’s comments about no significant warming over the last two decades into perspective. ”

The post being replied to (Izaak) stated: “it is a good thing that June was the hottest June on record”, not the “warmest”. Most people reading “hottest” assume it is maximum temperature that is being addressed.

“You really seem to be disagreeing with the author of this post. He claims temperatures are not going up, and is very insistent that warmth is best for crops, with no exception made for maximum temperatures. “

You are lost in the thread forest. This is a sub-thread about the “hottest” June. It is not a thread directly related to the author.

“Not according to the BEST data. The 20 year average TMAX anomaly covering that period was around -0.04°C. “

Most of the record maximum temperatures, at least in the continental US, were set in the 30’s. Go here: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/. Once again you have fallen into the trap of thinking that the average temperature is a proxy for maximum temperatures.

“You can repeat it as often as you like, it won’t make it true. Averages can tell you a lot about the real world, not everything but a lot. ”

What do averages tell you exactly?

“No, but I can tell you that some of the numbers must have changed, that some must have gone up,  ”

So what? Which numbers changed? The mnimum numbers One of the middle value numbers? Or the largest number? If you don’t know that then how do you make any judgment on what actually happened? If you don’t know what happened then how do you apply that to the real world?

“You realize cooling-day data is effectively an average? All you have is the sum of temperatures above an arbitrary value. ”

You didn’t actually work out the examples I gave you, did you? You know that when the cooling-day count goes up it was because the maximum temperature went up. You know that when the cooling-day count goes down that the maximum temperature went down. The use of the cooling-day count (or conversly the heating-day count) is used to size air-condition/furnace installations. That is highly dependent on what the maximum/minimum temperatures are.

“More importantly, you haven’t used the data to dispute the claim that maximum and minimum temperatures have risen over the 21st century. ”

I gave you a link to a post showing maximum temperatures from about 1900 to 2010. Can you legitimately contend that the cooling-day count in the late-30’s would not have been higher than in the 2000’s? Maximum temperatures have not risen in the 21st century, at least in the continental US.

“You don’t think averages can tell you anything, but counting months with a day above an arbitrary value in a single city does? ”

As I pointed out earlier, while the absolute temperature from a single site may be incorrect because of UHI the temperatures still serve as a proxy for the surrounding area. I haven’t given you data from just one city but from four or five from varying regions. There is no foundation that I can find for assuming that surrounding rural areas will be hotter than cities in the same region. It is obvious that you have still not grasped the concept of cooling-day. Perhaps I am being misleading using that old terminology. The term used today is “cooling degree days”. The definition is: “Cooling degree days”, or “CDD”, are a measure of how much (in degrees), and for how long (in days), outside air temperature was higher than a specific base temperature. They are used for calculations relating to the energy consumption required to cool buildings “

(note carefully the words “how much (in degrees)”

If the cooling-degree-day value for yesterday is higher than today then that indicates that the maximum temperature yesterday reached a higher value than it did today. Yesterday needed more energy to cool a building than was required today.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 27, 2019 3:36 pm

Most of the record maximum temperatures, at least in the continental US, were set in the 30’s. Go here: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/a-simple-proof-that-the-1930s-were-hotter/. Once again you have fallen into the trap of thinking that the average temperature is a proxy for maximum temperatures.

I specifically quoted data for maximum temperatures. If you are objecting to using a global average rather than just the USA you should have been more specific. If you wanted to know when maximum daily records were set rather than climatic conditions you should have specified that.

The problem with rejecting all averages is that you are then free to choose any specific value to prove your point.

And I’m not going to trust anything Steve Goddard says at face value.

So what? Which numbers changed? The mnimum numbers One of the middle value numbers? Or the largest number?

As I said, an average does not tell you everything, but your claim is they tell you nothing. It’s useful to know that an average changed. It means something has changed, and it gives an indication of how things have changed in general. It indicates what the total is and it helps to smooth out uncertainty and noise.

An average is really just a total, normalized to a more understandable value. If I’m running a business and want to know profits are going, I can look at one individual month, or I can look at the whole year and work out the average monthly profit. The average doesn’t tell me what each month was doing but it does give me a better indication of how the business is doing than just looking at one month. If I see the average monthly profit is down I know that something needs looking at even if I don’t know exactly where the issue is. I would then want to dig deeper into the stats.

If you don’t know that then how do you make any judgment on what actually happened? If you don’t know what happened then how do you apply that to the real world?

What do the numbers represent? What judgements do you want to make? In some cases I might only want to know what the total is. If I do need to know what each number is doing, then the average will only tell me that somethings changed and I’d want to look at all the numbers to find out what.

But what would I know if I only had one number to look at? Without knowing the average or all the values, how do I make a judgement. One number got smaller, but should I panic without knowing what the other numbers are doing?

You know that when the cooling-day count goes up it was because the maximum temperature went up.

You don’t actually know that. The way CDDs work it’s entirely possible for the maximum to go down but the CDD to go up. A CDD could be changed by a warmer minimum temperature, if it results in a longer portion of the day being above the base temperature.

The daily CDD is an average – you cannot tell if a high value is because it reached a high maximum for a short period, or if it stayed flat for a longer period. Moreover, you were using monthly totals and comparing them with 5 year averages. You don’t know whether a slightly lower monthly count was because all days were slightly cooler or if some days were very hot and others very cold.

I gave you a link to a post showing maximum temperatures from about 1900 to 2010.

Which link? You gave me a link to a WUWT article showing maximum surface temperature warming at the rate of about 1.5°C / century, but only since 2006, and you linked to the deplorable climate science site, with some count of record days for the US. I cannot find a link to a post showing maximum temperatures since 1900.

I’ve mentioned BEST land TMAX data, this definitely does not show the 30s as being warmer than current maximums.

Maximum temperatures have not risen in the 21st century, at least in the continental US.

NOAA shows US maximum temperatures rising at about 1.6°C / century.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tmax/12/12/2000-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2019

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 27, 2019 5:44 pm

Bellman:

“I specifically quoted data for maximum temperatures.”

So did I. And you just used the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal to reject them.

“The problem with rejecting all averages is that you are then free to choose any specific value to prove your point.”

I don’t reject all averages but I certainly reject trying to make decisions for future actions based on a global average temperature which doesn’t tell you anything about what is happening in reality-world.

“And I’m not going to trust anything Steve Goddard says at face value.”

He didn’t post opinion. He posted data.

“As I said, an average does not tell you everything, but your claim is they tell you nothing.”

Global average climate data tells you nothing. It doesn’t tell whether grain harvests will be impacted by high temperatures. It doesn’t tell you anything about what regional impacts will be on growing seasons. All it does is provide fodder for the AGW alarmists.

“An average is really just a total, normalized to a more understandable value. ”

Adding up all months and dividing by 12 simply won’t tell you if your business is failing or not. You may think you are doing adequate business per month why the business is actual going under. If you aren’t looking at daily averages then you don’t know if you’d be better off shuttering the business on Sunday or not. A monthly average of all days won’t give you the granularity you need. And it’s the same for daily averages. If you aren’t looking at hourly averages then you don’t know if you need to be opening earlier or closing later to maximize net revenue.

“A CDD could be changed by a warmer minimum temperature, if it results in a longer portion of the day being above the base temperature.”

The minimum temperature is fixed for a cooling-degree-day measurement at 65degF. If the outside temperature stays higher than that for 24 hours then it will be picked up in the CDD value and be carried over into the next day.

“The daily CDD is an average – you cannot tell if a high value is because it reached a high maximum for a short period, or if it stayed flat for a longer period.”

You *still* don’t get how the cooling-degree-data works. Since you have fixed the minimum value usually the only way the total can go up is if the maximum value goes up. Take a period from 12pm to 4pm where the temperature goes up one deg per half hour (8 intervals). If the temperature starts at 65deg then it will go up to 73deg. Then assume it goes down at the same rate from 73deg to 65 deg. Add up each integer from 65 to 73 and double it. That’s your total. And divide by 16. Instead of going up to 73deg for the last three half-hours assume it stayed at 70deg. Will the total be greater or less than if it went up to 73deg? Since the sun is setting after 4pm you simply don’t usually get the heat input to keep temperatures up. You may get an odd day where the wind is blowing in warmer air at night on one day causing the temperature to stay up but that is why the CDD is calculated over a month.

Again the CDD and HDD measurements were developed to allow estimating cooling/heating load requirements for infrastructure. Maximum and minimum temperatures impact these load requirements significantly and it is why CCC/HDD are a direct indicator of how the minimum and maximum temperatures are behaving.

“deplorable climate science site, with some count of record days for the US. I cannot find a link to a post showing maximum temperatures since 1900.”

Record days *are* maximum temperatures! If you are setting records then the maximum temperatures have gone up!

“NOAA shows US maximum temperatures rising at about 1.6°C / century.”

The site you give using the following entries: Maximum Temperature, All Months, July, 1900-2019 shows 1901 and two years in the 30’s over 90. No other year is close. For the 2010’s no year appears to be over 98. Almost all of the 1930’s were. I simply don’t know what you are talking about unless it is the *mean*. The mean (i.e. average) is meaningless when it comes to refuting the AGW claims that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder. If you truly want to see why the mean is going up then change the Maximum Temperature parameter to the Minimum Temperature parameter. It is minimum temperatures that are going up, not maximums.

And higher minimums mean longer growing seasons and more food for the peasants. That’s a *good* thing. It’s why Freeman Dyson is critical of the the AGW alarmists and the climate modelers. They do not look at the overall picture of the Earth and its environment!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 28, 2019 4:42 pm

And you just used the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal to reject them.

I haven’t rejected any of your data. I’ve just questioned its usefulness in determining if maximum temperatures are warming.

Global average climate data tells you nothing.

I’m not sure if you understand the meaning of the word “nothing”. Of course a global average doesn’t tell you everything about regional variations, but you can look at regional averages. What you cannot do is look at a single day in a single place and deduce what is happening everywhere.

Adding up all months and dividing by 12 simply won’t tell you if your business is failing or not.

Really? If last year your average monthly profits were $100,000, and this year they are only $10,000, you cannot tell anything from that?

If you aren’t looking at hourly averages then you don’t know if you need to be opening earlier or closing later to maximize net revenue.

You can look at that, but you still don’t want to be looking at individual hours – you want to see what the average hourly values. Knowing that you made a small profit at 9am on the 1st of June isn’t an argument for opening later – look at the average for all such hours.

You *still* don’t get how the cooling-degree-data works.

Maybe not, but are you sure you understand them?

That’s your total. And divide by 16.

And there’s your problem, you don’t divide by 16, you divide by 48 (as there are 48 half hours in a day). Hence my point that the less time spent below the base the higher the CDD.

Since the sun is setting after 4pm you simply don’t usually get the heat input to keep temperatures up.

That depends on location and the base line – also on finding a place where the sun sets at 4pm in summer!

… but that is why the CDD is calculated over a month.

In other words use a monthly average to smooth out outliers.

I’m not suggesting by the way that HDDs and CDDs are not useful. But if you are concerned about food, why not use GDDs?

The site you give using the following entries …

You specifically said that maximum temperatures had not increased in the 21st century in the US. I provided data that contradicts that claim.

I simply don’t know what you are talking about unless it is the *mean*.

No, I linked to a graph for US maximums.

It is minimum temperatures that are going up, not maximums.

Both are going up. Minimums, as expected, are going up faster than maximums, but maximums are still going up.

I’m not disputing that it was very hot in the 30s in parts of the USA. But that’s just one country. Globally, as the BEST data suggests, maximums are warmer now than they were in the 30s.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 28, 2019 6:04 pm

“I haven’t rejected any of your data. I’ve just questioned its usefulness in determining if maximum temperatures are warming.”

Of course you did, by saying you didn’t trust anything from the author.

“I’m not sure if you understand the meaning of the word “nothing”. Of course a global average doesn’t tell you everything about regional variations, but you can look at regional averages. What you cannot do is look at a single day in a single place and deduce what is happening everywhere.”

You are dissembling. This has nothing to do with regional averages vs global averages. All you can say is that global averages tell you something about global averages. That’s circular reasoning. You can’t state what is actually happening because global averages tell you nothing, not even about the globe.

“Really? If last year your average monthly profits were $100,000, and this year they are only $10,000, you cannot tell anything from that?”

I believe you said to get an average monthly revenue by adding up annual profits and dividing by 12. That will not tell you anything. It was *I* that said you needed to look at monthly averages generated from daily revenue totals per month.

“ou can look at that, but you still don’t want to be looking at individual hours – you want to see what the average hourly values. ”

You have to look at individual hours. If you are paying employees to open at 6am but from 6am to 8am you are making no revenue then it is costing you to open that early!

“Maybe not, but are you sure you understand them?”

Yes, I am sure I understand them.

“And there’s your problem, you don’t divide by 16,”

I was trying to set up an example you could understand. It actually doesn’t make any difference if you use 48 for each day because then it all comes out in the wash! Remember, for those hours in the day where the temperature is not above 65deg you get a zero in the nominator. Divide that by anything you want and you still get a zero contribution to the average!

“That depends on location and the base line – also on finding a place where the sun sets at 4pm in summer!”

It’s not a matter of the timing of sunset. It’s a matter of what the angle of incidence is between the sun and the Earth.As the sun starts to go down you get less energy input from the sun and the temperature begins to drop. The reason the temperature peaks later in the afternoon is purely time lag.

“In other words use a monthly average to smooth out outliers.”

Of course it is! But that has nothing to do with what the data shows for maximum temperatures!

“I’m not suggesting by the way that HDDs and CDDs are not useful. But if you are concerned about food, why not use GDDs?”

Do you have a global temperature gauge? I don’t. I don’t know anyone that does. Global averages simply won’t cut it!

“You specifically said that maximum temperatures had not increased in the 21st century in the US. I provided data that contradicts that claim.”

The site you gave shows otherwise. Did you bother to go back and look?

“No, I linked to a graph for US maximums.”

And that site shows that the maximums in the 30’s were greater than in the 21st century. So current maximums have gone down compared to the 30’s.

“Both are going up. Minimums, as expected, are going up faster than maximums, but maximums are still going up.”

No, minimums today are higher than in the 30’s. They are going up. Maximums today are lower than in the 30’s. The maximums have gone down since the 30’s. Whine about the Earth turning into a cinder when the 21st century maximums exceed those of the 30’s.

“Globally, as the BEST data suggests, maximums are warmer now than they were in the 30s.”

And the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations around the globe shows otherwise. Globablly maximums are going down. That data is used by people to make a living. If that data does not reflect reality then you would be hearing screaming from HVAC engineers around the world!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 29, 2019 4:32 am

Of course you did, by saying you didn’t trust anything from the author.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to all the CDD data. I was dismissive of Steve Goddard’s “proof” because I’ve seen so many occasions where he gets it wrong or presents data in misleading ways. I haven’t examined this particular claim in depth, but it isn’t showing data for maximum temperature, it’s showing daily records. This is not at all the same as looking at overall maximum values. I’m not going to say records tell you nothing, but I think they are less useful than averaged data.

You still haven’t explained why you keep ignoring the BEST data and why selected CDDs or US only records trump them.

You are dissembling. This has nothing to do with regional averages vs global averages.

I think we are both getting confused by all the different types of average floating around. You specifically said “Global average climate data tells you nothing. … It doesn’t tell you anything about what regional impacts will be on growing seasons.”
Unless you specify which average you accept as useful and which you think “tell you nothing” then I think these conversations are just going to go round in circles.

I believe you said to get an average monthly revenue by adding up annual profits and dividing by 12. That will not tell you anything. It was *I* that said you needed to look at monthly averages generated from daily revenue totals per month.

I accept I’ve added a degree on confusion by talking about “monthly averages” in this way.

My point is that any average is a long term value divided equally into smaller units. By monthly average I mean that if you know the annual total, you can divide by 12 to get the average monthly value. It’s my contention that whether you look at an average monthly value or an annual total you can still see if business is growing or falling compared with last year. It’s your contention that this will tell you nothing which I don’t understand.

What you’re talking about is the monthly average for each specific month. This is analogous to looking at the monthly average for daily temperatures, but doesn’t make so much sense in a business context. This monthly average is the sum of daily values, the equivalent monthly average in climate is the average of the total of anomaly degrees divided by the number of days. It could more appropriately be called the daily average for the month.

In either event it still amounts to looking at a longer term aggregate rather than individual values.

You have to look at individual hours. If you are paying employees to open at 6am but from 6am to 8am you are making no revenue then it is costing you to open that early!

But what do you mean by looking at individual hours? Either you look at each hour of each day in isolation, or you look at averages for specific hours. Knowing that between 6am and 8am on the 7th June you made no revenue would be a poor reason for closing up at that time. Seeing that the average takings between these hours was to low to justify opening early would be a good example of how averages can tell you something.

But to my point, you can always find examples of the usefulness or looking at small units of time, but that does not mean that the bigger picture tells you nothing. It might be useful to improve profits by focusing on what time you open, but if you doing this whilst ignoring the fact that annual profits are dropping might not be so smart.

“And there’s your problem, you don’t divide by 16,”

I was trying to set up an example you could understand. It actually doesn’t make any difference if you use 48 for each day because then it all comes out in the wash! Remember, for those hours in the day where the temperature is not above 65deg you get a zero in the nominator. Divide that by anything you want and you still get a zero contribution to the average!

It most definitely does make a difference. The CDD is trying to derive an average for the day when cooling is applied. You do this by taking half hourly values, subtracting the base temperature and treating all values below this as zero. You then divide the total of all these half hourly measurements by 48, because you have 48 half hourly values. The more zeros there are the smaller the value.

Your example was dividing by 16 because you only were counting the 8 hours above the base line, but that just gives you the average for those 8 hours. The CDD requires you know the average for the entire day including the times when you were not cooling the building.

To take your example, you use a base of 65, and have a day with a maximum of 73, with the temperature only being above the base for 8 hours. You have a total of 72 degree half hours above the magic number. Divide by 48 gives you a cooling degree day of 1.5 degrees, which represents the average amount throughout the day by which you were cooling the building. This is an estimate of the proportion of energy you will use in cooling.

Now suppose the next day you have the same maximum temperature of 73 degrees, but warmer nights, and your thermometer is above the base line for 16 rather than 8 hours, but rising and falling at half the rate, so that it changes by half a degree every half hour. The total half hour degrees is now doubled to 144, and dividing by 48 gives you a cooling degree day of 3.0. You need to spend twice as much cooling the building, despite the maximum staying the same.

“I’m not suggesting by the way that HDDs and CDDs are not useful. But if you are concerned about food, why not use GDDs?”

Do you have a global temperature gauge? I don’t. I don’t know anyone that does. Global averages simply won’t cut it!

I think you misunderstood – GDD means Growing Degree Days, it’s a similar concept to cooling degree days but represents the way temperature adds to crop growth. As far as I can see it’s calculated the same as for CDD but with a lower base level, and possibly not counting temperatures above a certain value.

“Globally, as the BEST data suggests, maximums are warmer now than they were in the 30s.”

And the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations around the globe shows otherwise. Globablly maximums are going down

You haven’t provided any examples of CDDs being higher in the 30s than today. Your CDD values have only looked at the last 3 years. I doubt there are many stations in the 30s that recorded half hourly temperatures needed for your advanced CDD calculations, and even if you had them, you would have to generate an average across the globe to claim that global maximums are going down.

Incidentally, using the simplified version of CDDs, NOAA’s data shows CDDs in the US are quite a bit higher today then they where in the 30s.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/cdd/12/12/1895-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 29, 2019 9:02 am

“I haven’t examined this particular claim in depth, but it isn’t showing data for maximum temperature, it’s showing daily records.”

It is showing how many record high temps are being set per year. If our maximum temperatures are really on the rise then we would be setting new record high temperatures every year. The fact is that we are not.

“but I think they are less useful than averaged data.”

Using averaged data to say that maximum temperatures are on the rise is wrong. You simply can’t tell from averaged data if maximum temperatures are going up.

“You still haven’t explained why you keep ignoring the BEST data and why selected CDDs or US only records trump them.”

Of course I have. The BEST data is AVERAGED data, either on a daily or monthly basis. Again, averaged data per day or month tells you nothing about what is happening to maximum or minimum temperatures.You can’t seem to get away from your belief that average temperatures tell you something about minimums and maximums. Why is that?

“Unless you specify which average you accept as useful”

Neither global, regional, or daily averages tell you nothing. They are, therefore, useless for telling you what is happening in reality. They can’t tell if grain harvests are going to go up because of stable or moderating maximum temperatures or if they are going to go down because of increasing maximum temperatures.

“It’s my contention that whether you look at an average monthly value or an annual total you can still see if business is growing or falling compared with last year.”

Which means it may take a whole year for you to see that your business is failing.

“Seeing that the average takings between these hours was to low to justify opening early would be a good example of how averages can tell you something.”

The point is that you have to go to the granularity for the average so that you get useful data. Average daily MAXIMUM temperature per month would tell you something useful about what is happening. Average daily minimum temperature per month would tell you something something useful about what is happening. The minute you combine the maximum and minimum temperature into a daily average you lose any ability to discern anything about what is actually happening. You lose your useful granularity.

“but that does not mean that the bigger picture tells you nothing.”

What does a global average temperature tell you? You’ve already admitted that you can’t tell if maximum temperatures are going up or of minimum temperatures are going up. The very site you provided shows that it is minimum temperatures going up that are the major impact on the average temperature. That is totally at odds with the AGW alarmists that keep saying the Earth is going to turn into a cinder.

“The more zeros there are the smaller the value.”

You are missing the point! The denominator only acts as a scaling factor! If it is hotter yesterday than today then the CDD for yesterday will be higher than the CDD for today! Which means the temperature went higher!

“Now suppose the next day you have the same maximum temperature of 73 degrees, but warmer nights”

And what causes the night tomorrow to be much warmer than today? You somehow believe that the temp will be above 65deg for only 8 hours today but for 16 hours tomorrow? Where do you live that such a thing happens?

“You need to spend twice as much cooling the building, despite the maximum staying the same.”

You just described what the CDD is good for! Remember, if yesterday the temperature was above 65deg for 16 hours then the temperature today will probably be above 65deg for 16 hours as well! And if the maximum temp yesterday was 75deg but it only reached 73deg today then the CDD for yesterday will be higher than it is for today!

“As far as I can see it’s calculated the same as for CDD but with a lower base level, and possibly not counting temperatures above a certain value.”

Then what good is GDD for determining maximum temps if high temps are not counted?

“You haven’t provided any examples of CDDs being higher in the 30s than today.”

Going back more than three years costs $50 per attempt. I don’t see any reason to spend that money when other data can be used to determine what is happening over the longer period.

“Incidentally, using the simplified version of CDDs, NOAA’s data shows CDDs in the US are quite a bit higher today then they where in the 30s.”

That’s because they use daily averages, i.e. (max + min)/2. And, once again, that doesn’t tell you anything. Are the values today higher because of higher maximums or because of higher minimums? You keep on making the same mistake the AGW alarmists make – that higher averages can only happen because maximum temperatures are going up and the Earth is going to become a cinder!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 29, 2019 12:37 pm

Of course I have. The BEST data is AVERAGED data, either on a daily or monthly basis. Again, averaged data per day or month tells you nothing about what is happening to maximum or minimum temperatures. You can’t seem to get away from your belief that average temperatures tell you something about minimums and maximums. Why is that?

You don’t seem to understand that when I refer to the BEST maximum temperatures, I mean their dataset that is averaging maximum temperatures – not an average of the mean temperatures. I’m not sure how I can make this any clearer.

Average daily MAXIMUM temperature per month would tell you something useful about what is happening. Average daily minimum temperature per month would tell you something something useful about what is happening.

Then your in luck.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TMAX_complete.txt

The very site you provided shows that it is minimum temperatures going up that are the major impact on the average temperature. That is totally at odds with the AGW alarmists that keep saying the Earth is going to turn into a cinder.

How many times are you going to suggest I believe the Earth is about to turn into a cinder, before you accept I’m not arguing any thing of the sort?

However your bigger point is interesting. The fact that minimum temperatures are rising faster than maximums is what you would expect from warming caused by increasing CO2. It’s the opposite of what you would expect if the warming was caused by the sun, as the global cooling alarmist in the head post claims.

You are missing the point! The denominator only acts as a scaling factor!

That only makes sense if you use the same denominator for each day. Is that what you meant when you divided 8 hours by 16? Why would you divide 48 half hours by 16? It doesn’t give you a degree day, it gives you a scaled degree day.

If it is hotter yesterday than today then the CDD for yesterday will be higher than the CDD for today! Which means the temperature went higher!

But as I tried to explain in my example it doesn’t necessarily mean that the maximum temperature went higher.

And what causes the night tomorrow to be much warmer than today? You somehow believe that the temp will be above 65deg for only 8 hours today but for 16 hours tomorrow? Where do you live that such a thing happens?

It was an artificial example to illustrate a point. It was no more realistic than assuming temperatures will increase or decrease in linear fashion. The point being illustrated is that you don’t need an increase in maximum temperatures to see an increase in cooling degree days.

Then what good is GDD for determining maximum temps if high temps are not counted?

I didn’t say it was better for determining maximum temperatures. It’s better for deciding how temperature changes will impact food production. Which is what you claimed to be interested in.

Going back more than three years costs $50 per attempt. I don’t see any reason to spend that money when other data can be used to determine what is happening over the longer period.

So you were wrong to claim that the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations showed that maximums were warmer in the 30s globally

That’s because they use daily averages, i.e. (max + min)/2.

That’s not entirely true. The simplified CDD calculation, only counts days where the average is above a certain value – 65°F (about 18.3°C in todays currency). It’s a rough approximation of the more detailed values. As I said, I doubt there are many station data with half hourly readings back in the 30s.

You keep on making the same mistake the AGW alarmists make – that higher averages can only happen because maximum temperatures are going up and the Earth is going to become a cinder!

I’ve not made that claim at all – I’ve only pointed out that both maximums and minimums are going up, but minimums faster than maximums. I don’t know why someone who thinks the warming has been caused by rising CO2 would claim otherwise, as it’s a testable prediction of the global warming hypothesis.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
July 29, 2019 2:43 pm

“You don’t seem to understand that when I refer to the BEST maximum temperatures, I mean their dataset that is averaging maximum temperatures

And what does the monthly average maximum temperature tell you? Can it tell you what the *maximum* temperatures were?

“How many times are you going to suggest I believe the Earth is about to turn into a cinder, before you accept I’m not arguing any thing of the sort?”

You are lost in the thread forest again.

“The fact that minimum temperatures are rising faster than maximums is what you would expect from warming caused by increasing CO2.”

Remember, CO2 provides the same “insulating” factor during the day that it does at night. So why wouldn’t CO2 drive maximum temperatures up as the AGW alarmists contend? If CO2 intercepts radiation from the Earth at night then it also intercepts it during the day. And the Earth *does* radiate during the day at an even faster rate than it does at night because daytime temperatures are higher.

“That only makes sense if you use the same denominator for each day. Is that what you meant when you divided 8 hours by 16? Why would you divide 48 half hours by 16? It doesn’t give you a degree day, it gives you a scaled degree day.”

I told you I was trying to set up an example you could understand! If you go back and look at my posts I gave you how the CDD site does it and it *is* by dividing by 48. Nor did I divide 48 half hours by 16! Why would you think scaling makes any difference at all? Fahrenheit and Celsius are two different temperature scales. Do that scaling make a difference?

“But as I tried to explain in my example it doesn’t necessarily mean that the maximum temperature went higher.”

Of course it does!

“It was an artificial example to illustrate a point. ”

Which has absolutely no relation to reality!

“It was no more realistic than assuming temperatures will increase or decrease in linear fashion.”

Temperatures increase and decrease in the same manner each day. That increase and decrease does not have to be linear, it only has to be similar. No one ever said it has to be linear. In fact it will probably never be linear because you get more heating from the sun when it is traversing from 80deg to 100deg than you do when it is traversing from 0deg to 20deg in its orbit!

“The point being illustrated is that you don’t need an increase in maximum temperatures to see an increase in cooling degree days.”

Of course you do. That’s what the whole exercise is for. If lower temperatures produced higher CDD values then how could engineers properly design cooling/heating units for maximum load?

“I didn’t say it was better for determining maximum temperatures. It’s better for deciding how temperature changes will impact food production. Which is what you claimed to be interested in.”

Really? At least for grains it would not be better for determining the impact on food production. Grains suffer when temperatures get above 90degF. If you throw out temperatures over 90degF then how do you estimate what will happen to food production?

“So you were wrong to claim that the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations showed that maximums were warmer in the 30s globally”

I didn’t use the CDD database for that. I gave you a site showing record high temperatures going back to 1900. And we simply aren’t setting new high temperature records at the same rate we have in the past. Meaning maximum temperatures are not increasing or we would still be setting new records at the same rate!

“I’ve not made that claim at all – I’ve only pointed out that both maximums and minimums are going up, but minimums faster than maximums. I don’t know why someone who thinks the warming has been caused by rising CO2 would claim otherwise, as it’s a testable prediction of the global warming hypothesis.”

But maximums are not going up. As I said, if CO2 was blocking the Earth from radiating heat then it would cause maximums to go up as well since it would block radiation during the day as well as at night. As Freeman Dyson pointed out, the climate models aren’t based on a holistic basis. The greening of the Earth, about 10% to 15%, since 1980 has to have had a distinct impact on temperatures. It would affect both albedo and evapotranspiration. Yet neither of the models apparently consider this at all.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 29, 2019 5:14 pm

And what does the monthly average maximum temperature tell you? Can it tell you what the *maximum* temperatures were?

You specifically said “Average daily MAXIMUM temperature per month would tell you something useful about what is happening.”. Tell me which averages you find acceptable, otherwise you just seem to be going out of you way to ignore evidence that contradicts your claim.

I told you I was trying to set up an example you could understand!

You didn’t do a very good job as I’ve still no idea why you divided by 16, when there are 48 half hours in a day. Yes if you divide all days by 16 you get a scaled version of a CDD, but calling it a cooling degree day would be meaningless.

Nor did I divide 48 half hours by 16!

Yes you did, and the fact you cannot see this is the problem. In your example there are 48 half hours in the day, but only 16 of them were above the base line, the others are set to zero. If you divide by 16 you are not getting a degree day, you are just get a degree eight hours.

“The point being illustrated is that you don’t need an increase in maximum temperatures to see an increase in cooling degree days.”

Of course you do. That’s what the whole exercise is for. If lower temperatures produced higher CDD values then how could engineers properly design cooling/heating units for maximum load?

That’s not the point of CDDs. The point is to provide an estimate of energy costs for a building – the hotter it gets the more cooling is needed, but the longer it stays above the critical vale the more cooling is required. The estimate is based on the average value the day is above the base value, say 65°C. The assumption is there is no difference in being 1 degree above the base level for the entire day, or 2 degrees above for half a day or 24 degrees above for 1 hour – the energy required to cool the building is assumed to be the same. The website you use explains this.

“Cooling degree days”, or “CDD”, are a measure of how much (in degrees), and for how long (in days), outside air temperature was higher than a specific base temperature. They are used for calculations relating to the energy consumption required to cool buildings.

Really? At least for grains it would not be better for determining the impact on food production.

I’ve no idea, I’d never seen it until you started going on about degree-days. I think I was wrong to say you don’t count temperatures above a certain value – rather you cap maximums at that value. Here’s a page describing it in more detail

https://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/help-corn-growing-degree-days.html

“So you were wrong to claim that the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations showed that maximums were warmer in the 30s globally”

I didn’t use the CDD database for that.

Your exact word were:

“Globally, as the BEST data suggests, maximums are warmer now than they were in the 30s.”

And the cooling-degree-day database from selected stations around the globe shows otherwise. Globablly maximums are going down. That data is used by people to make a living. If that data does not reflect reality then you would be hearing screaming from HVAC engineers around the world!

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 24, 2019 4:16 pm

Actually it wasn’t the warmest ever. Not when you use realistic error bars.
But then again, using realistic numbers was never your intention.

jtom
July 24, 2019 11:40 am

Well, yes, this echos what I have been saying in the past. We WILL see climates change, manmade or natural, makes little difference. But there is much we can do to buffer our society against the possibility of either hot or cold (and both conditions require cheap energy to ensure survival) changes in climates.

Energy efficiency, research of different crop hybrids that are most suited for different temperatures and water requirements, how best to insulate buildings, food storage, etc., would be areas worthy of investment. If would be futile, though, to spend money trying to PREVENT climates changing, nor wise to waste resources to compensate areas most affected by climate change. It would be far better to help countries mitigate the effects of change.

At the moment we are wasting our efforts at trying to prevent warming climates. This, IMO, is a path to failure. We cannot change what happens to the climates. And efforts to prevent warming climates would be totally counterproductive if Nature has a colder climate in store for us.

Climates WILL change. Why are people willing to bet the farm we can stop it?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  jtom
July 24, 2019 12:45 pm

They don’t care if they lose the farm because they only know that food comes from the grocery market.
Reality is confined to their bubble.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Pop Piasa
July 24, 2019 1:58 pm

Pop Piasa
July 24, 2019 at 12:45 pm

Yes, you’re dead right.
And petrol comes from the petrol station and everything else they need from Walmart. Thus why do we need farmers, oil wells/fracking, mines of any sort?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  jtom
July 24, 2019 1:27 pm

Because they think (or pretend to) that CO2 is the “control knob” to our climate, when nothing could be further from the truth.

goldminor
July 24, 2019 11:44 am

This growing season has been different from previous years. My dwarf peach dropped 2/3rds of its fruit off after the bloom. The only peaches are on the lower branches. That was that last cold spell which likely caused that. Nearby pear and apple trees in the area were also affected in the same manner. Although the fruit which did set and hold is now good size. The tomatoes/cherry toms are behind in sizing up. Talking to neighbors many have struggled to get their gardens up this year. Then again, Trinity county was always kniown as a tough place to grow tomatoes and gardens back in the 1950s through the 1970s.

RayG
Reply to  goldminor
July 24, 2019 4:59 pm

We live in the SF Bay Area and have grown tomatoes among other edibles in our back yard for many years. The same varieties that set abundant fruit for 15 years stopped setting fruit in 2015 as the average temperatures were not hot enough. I stopped trying this year. It has only been warm enough to eat on the patio around 10 days this season unlike past years when we could eat outside most days for over 6 months of the year. Where is this Global Warming™ and where are the “hottest evuh” days?

jim heath
July 24, 2019 11:47 am

Geographically Greenies congregate in inner city zones. The only thing they have ever grown is their ego. Every “Greenie” should at least grow products and feed themselves. The weight loss will do them good.

Sweet Old Bob
July 24, 2019 11:58 am

Aye , there’s the rub ….
Hope this effect is minimal .

NavarreAggie
July 24, 2019 12:15 pm

University of East Anglia, eh?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  NavarreAggie
July 24, 2019 4:14 pm

Obviously, he didn’t get the memo..

TonyL
July 24, 2019 12:47 pm

However, fewer people understand that that crops are more sensitive to cold than to hot weather.

OK, I can understand the temptation to consider the population as a whole as all Grade-B morons.
And then:

Most of the present-day focus has been focused on addressing the impact of heat on plants. As a consequence, we hardly address the hyper-sensitivity of food crops to cold weather.

“Most of the present day focus”, by who, exactly? By a bunch of sensationalist media types, or the agricultural community at large?

The author then spends the entire of the rest of his theses on the presumption that it is the farmers and the rest of agricultural community that has lost the understanding that cold, poor weather hurts crops.
The author goes on and on as if the farmers and the whole of the agricultural community are also Grade-B morons. Of course, the author is attempting to stir up some alarmism and attention to himself as well.

And then:

international governing institutions like the United Nations should be preparing our farmers for cold weather, equipping the local administrative bodies with mechanisms to cope with such bad weather.

Riiiiight. The UN is going to help our farmers and local administrative bodies, Sure.
Such a diagnosis!!! Such a cure!!!!

Maybe, perhaps, our esteemed author needs to stop by a farm, and visit an Agricultural Extension Service associated with one of our universities.
But no, learning about things before writing is hard, it takes work.

John F. Hultquist
July 24, 2019 12:52 pm

After an unusually cold spring and summer this year hampered crop growth across the Northern Hemisphere,

The link in this statement did not work — for me.

Also, the word “across” ought not be construed as “the Northern Hemisphere.”
Some places have had a cool and or wet spring. Not all. Many places are fine.
News outlets report bad news. One has to search to find out where crops are doing well.

rbabcock
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 24, 2019 2:22 pm

this is a great site for the US on crop status by state https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/State_Crop_Progress_and_Condition/index.php

Bruce Cobb
July 24, 2019 12:56 pm

Oh the ironing. Svante Arrhenius postulated that man’s emissions of CO2 might help stave off or even prevent the next ice age. He hoped that that was the case, for the sake of mankind. Later, he realized he was wrong. Now, the supposed “threat” is from warming, caused by man’s CO2. We are looking at, and spending multi-$billions on a fantasy threat, as opposed to planning for a very real threat, as well as crippling our energy systems which will be crucial to responding to a very real threat. It’s double-down, double-stupid.

Jones
July 24, 2019 1:15 pm

U of East Anglia eh?

Hmm….. Viner, Viner, paging Dr Viner for comment…

https://climatism.blog/tag/dr-david-viner/

Vijay
Reply to  Jones
July 25, 2019 5:47 am

Yup, U of East Anglia, Norwich. And the Climatic Research Unit was a cool place to visit especially when the climategate scandal rocked it.

ResourceGuy
July 24, 2019 1:24 pm

In the Hunger Games future of the world, the urban centers with their UHI warming and warehouse vertical farming technology will do okay. It’s the all-other group out in the districts that will suffer.

tom0mason
July 24, 2019 2:04 pm

Shall we test the Herschel’s supposition of a correlation between the low amount of sunspots and lower grain yields explaining recurring booms and slumps in the economy?
Shall we test it without having any true means of escaping the consequences in a timely manner should it prove to be so for an extended period of low solar activity?
Theory says the supposition should not work, are we just hoping that theory will be proved correct?

alastair gray
July 24, 2019 2:06 pm

Nice article Viyay. How on earth do you manage to keep your job at UEA?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  alastair gray
July 24, 2019 8:12 pm

Alastair,
That is simple. He does not have a job at UEA nor did he ever have one. Look at his bio on
the Cornwall Alliance webpage (https://cornwallalliance.org/about/who-we-are/)

Not on staff but a consultant who often writes for us, Vijay Jayaraj earned his Masters of Science in Environmental Sciences from the University of East Anglia in 2010, where he worked with professors who were part of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). He began his career working for AECOM UK as a Field Ecologist. In 2011, he moved to the forests of India to help a local NGO with Tiger conservation and human-wildlife conflict. From 2012 to 2015, he was a research assistant with the Changing Ocean Research Centre at the University of British Columbia, one of the leading research units for studies on the impact of climate change on marine life, the output of which is used for determining the harmful impacts of climate change in the United Nations Assessment Reports. Vijay has spent time working in the field of environmental consultancy and has used his environmental expertise in the implementation of large-scale developmental projects of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in India. He also served as the Assistant Director of the Federation of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, where he helped the industry get accustomed to the new practices in life cycle assessment and pollution-free technology.

As you can see he has zero background in climate research. And if anything he is an ecologist who apparently now seems to
be out of a job. Furthermore the entire Cornwall Alliance is hardly a scientific organisation. Rather they put faith and religion first and interpret the world around them in light of their particular brand of Christian Fundamentalism. See their “landmark
document” Subduing and Ruling the Earth to the Glory of God and the Benefit of Our Neighbors for example.

Vijay
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 25, 2019 6:15 am

Izaak,
I understand that I have not been to the Arctic and I have not extracted ice cores, but I hope you do realize that climate research encompasses various fields. People who research in those fields use temperature data and assess the implication of rising temperatures on any subject they might be studying. Using climate data, studying the data source, understanding the biases in measurements, analyzing the forecasts, applying them to models and quantifying its implications on the world – are all part of climate research. But hey, you seem to think only Climatologists, Atmospheric physicists and meteorologists are into climate research. That’s fine.
Guess you aspire to be a very scientific person, but your remark on my employment status shows you just want to discredit me or tarnish my identity without evidence.
Regardless, I still don’t think our crops suffered during the two warm periods and the Little Ice Age was the biggest hurdle. It is wise to invest in protection against cold, if the upcoming Solar Minima will bring back LIA-like conditions.

ren
July 24, 2019 2:35 pm

The cool front reached the Gulf of Mexico.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2yvq7x5.jpg

DMacKenzie
July 24, 2019 3:04 pm

This article could just be a spoof or a hoax to poke fun at “denier” absurd commentary later. Nothing like this comes out of East Anglia…..although somebody spilled all those Climate Gate emails a few years ago….

Vijay
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 25, 2019 5:53 am

I did my grad studies at UEA. but you are right, almost all of my other peers from there are alarmists and none deniers or skeptics.

Steve Z
July 24, 2019 3:24 pm

If there is a future cooling trend, the recent increase in CO2 concentrations could be very beneficial. In a cooler climate, growing seasons in temperate regions will be shorter, but the extra CO2 in the air will speed up plant growth during the warm season, and help crops reach maturity in the shorter growing season.

At current emission rates, about 45% of human-emitted CO2 (from burning of fossil fuels) is removed by natural sinks (absorption into oceans, photosynthesis, etc.), while the remainder accumulates in the atmosphere. Higher future CO2 levels could speed up photosynthesis until the removal rate equals the emission rate at some higher concentration than at present.

If the future climate becomes colder, oceans will absorb more CO2 than at present, and the CO2 equilibrium concentration will be lower than assuming the current climate, but CO2 levels should continue to rise in the short term, which would be beneficial to farming in a cooling climate.

Bill Parsons
July 24, 2019 3:58 pm

The writer does not help by conflating cold conditions with other climatological problems.

Cold, in and of itself, is not the problem for agriculture. Horticulturists bank seed in bone-dry, sub-zero temperatures. They keep for decades – probably centuries – and germinate just fine after thawing out.

The real problem is not prolonged or deep cold spells, but irregular seasons of wet and dry that complicate local planting and harvest operations. This was the case with the “cooling” that brought an end to the Medieval Warm Period. It was prolonged rains – rains that swamped seed in the ground and brought it to the surface for animals to eat, or caused it to rot in the ground – that did the damage. And even the rains, which persisted over several years and are so well described by William Chester Jordan in “The Great Famine” did not work alone. Political instability and the frailties of feudal society worked hand-in-hand with the persistent flooding to complicate the problems of when to plant, how to fertilize and harvest once you’ve eaten your oxen, where to store grain, and how to distribute any perishables on roadways that have become a sea of mud.

As far as the current situation, the writer repeatedly references cold alone as the problem. This is incorrect. Today’s Wall Street Journal features an article explaining what has happened across the U.S.:

Farmers on Drenched Land Confront Tough Choice on Planting

The wettest 12 months on record in the continental U.S. are thwarting the spring corn crop and triggering insurance claims

By Jacob Bunge and Kirk Maltais
Updated June 5, 2019 12:24 pm ET
Millions of farm acres are set to go unplanted with corn this spring as persistent wet weather leaves U.S. farmers facing an agonizing choice: whether or not to risk trying to raise a crop.

Heavy, repeated rains over the past two months have left fields saturated throughout the critical planting period for corn, typically the biggest U.S. crop by acreage. Farmers in rain-soaked states now must decide whether to file insurance claims on unplanted fields, potentially making less money off their farms, switch to less-profitable crops or take their chances sowing corn that may not have time to fully mature.

Whether you believe as I do that solar minima are the chief factor in these extreme rainy cycles, or that global warming and CO2 are the culprits, the meme that “winter is a-comin’ in” does not have any bearing on mankind’s current condition unless you want to evoke the geological ages.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Bill Parsons
July 24, 2019 4:07 pm

I should edit my final sentence to read: “Evoking the geological ages is absurd and has little bearing on mankind in the short term.”

Gregg Eshelman
July 24, 2019 4:08 pm

Popular Mechanics writes about the “epithet” scientists have written for the Ok glacier in Iceland. I have a screenshot. Don’t know how long it’ll take them to swap in the correct word. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a28470046/okjokull-glacier/

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
July 24, 2019 10:51 pm

Funny. Daisy Hernandez needs to consult her expurgated Green Funk and Wagnalls. But a correction probably won’t happen, which is a story in itself. A digital edit of a diction error should be instantaneous and easy. But in a world where stories are like shouts into the Grand Canyon. There’s no echo, and her words will be forgotten. Fixing the problem would just take too much effort, and be of too little consequence.

I wish them all a choice epithet.

GREG in Houston
July 24, 2019 5:17 pm

I understand that weather is not climate…. but this morning for the first time since I moved to Houston 20 years ago, it was too cold to use my auto AC.

Gamecock
Reply to  GREG in Houston
July 24, 2019 6:56 pm

Very mild summer here in SC. I’ve seen 100 degrees once, while driving through an area that is usually hotter than everywhere else. The absence of 100 degree days is astounding.

And very nice.

July 24, 2019 7:58 pm

Cool is not as bad as cold. Freezing temperatures stop plant growth and destroys food crops. Moist or even relatively wet is not as bad as flooding and is better than drought. Some crops thrive in cool moist conditions as long as freezing is avoided. Others thrive in hot relatively dry conditions as long as drought is avoided.
Timing is everything. Hot and dry aids maturity and speeds harvest as long as there has been sufficient moisture and warmth for the crop to develop. Overly wet spring or fall can hinder seeding or harvesting up to an including a complete loss of a crop. Extreme winds, hail, hot or cold can severely damage crops if they occur at sensitive periods of a crops development.
There is no such thing as an average growing season. Every year is different and and most localities will be as well.
Like the movie title “A million ways to die in the west” there are nearly an unlimited number of factors that can affect the yield of a crop. Any tiny bit of universal warming or cooling that we may have seen or can expect to see in a reasonable time period has had or will have only an inconsequential effect.

July 24, 2019 8:17 pm

A little b it of future gazing.

If indeed the coming cool weather causes a decrease in the growing of conventual crops, then obviously we change to crops that can tolerate the cold.

If it gets so bad that we cannot grow food, then providing we have lots of cheap energy therm we in the West will manufacture food.

While I doubt a “”Solyant Green”” scenario, we will have to accept a different sort of diet, synthetic food is a practical thing, and for those who do not like it, two choices, either starve, or move to the parts of the world where it is warmer.

Instead of Europe and North America having a problem with illegal
migration it will reverse.

Of course there are lots of people there already, but as history clearly
shows that does make any difference. The strong will emerge out of such a situation.

MJE VK5ELL

%d bloggers like this: