Written by Sig Silber
(Updated 12:18 AM EDT August 16, 2021) This week we again follow the new format: In Part I we assess the recent, current and forecast weather situation; and in Part II we focus on impacts. In particular this week we have the NASS Executive Briefing which is always very informative.
Please share this article – Go to the very top of the page, right-hand side, for social media buttons. Please feel free to send this article to anyone who you think might benefit from reading it.
In an attempt to keep the size of this article manageable, we have decided to publish it in two parts. In Part I, we will update the current situation, look at recent history and to some extent the forecast. In Part II we will focus on the economic impacts and regional reports, energy, and place special emphasis on the crop reports. |
Climate Update
We previously reported on the weather in Conus and CONUS plus Alaska for July and the first half of 2021 and the results were on an overall basis surprisingly moderate with respect to Global Warming/ Climate Change. And then on Friday NOAA announced that for the World, July was the warmest on record.
So we need to reconcile these numbers and will soon. We have requested additional clarification from NOAA and this may take a few days.
It is not unusual for different parts of the World to be experiencing different conditions. But we want to understand it better so that we can provide a more comprehensive analysis than just looking at the data for CONUS and CONUS plus Alaska which is what we did on Thursday.
NASS Reports The NASS Reports including Executive Briefings are covered here in Part II. NASS Executive Briefings can be found here. A wide range of NASS Reports can be found here.
We have a NASS Executive Briefing this week.
Crop Progress Reports
When we have a NASS Executive Briefing, and we do not this week, one way to look at this report is that it adds another more recent week of information. This report is issued every week and the Executive Briefings are every couple of months and provide a lot of historical information.
Crop | Crop Progress | Crop Condition |
Corn | Percent Silking, Dough and Dented OK | Better last year. Mostly due to the Dakotas and Minnesota having poor conditions. |
Soybeans | Blooming and Setting Pods good. | Not so great. Mostly due to the Dakotas and Minnesota.. |
Cotton | Squaring and Setting Bolls a bit slow | Very good |
Winter Wheat | Harvested good | NA |
Spring Wheat | Harvested good* | Very poor in all states where Spring Wheat is grown |
Sorghum | Headed and Coloring a bit slow | OK |
Rice | Headed and Harvested a bit slow | OK |
Oats | Harvested ok* | Very poor compared to last year in the Dakotas, Texas and Minnesota. |
Barley | Harvested good* | Very poor North Dakota, Washington State, Montana, and Minnesota. |
Peanuts | Pegging OK | OK |
Sugar Beets | NA | NA |
Sunflowers | MA | NA |
Pasture and Range | Somewhat Poor |
*Some of the harvested may be in preparation for replanting. This is speculation on our part based on the reports we provided in recent weeks and the continued drought along the northern tier.
Additional Information can be found here. Pretty much it is the same information as shown in the above tables but at the end there is some information on the methodology used.
Intermediate-Term Weather Forecast
Showing from left to right, Days 1- 5, 6 – 10, 8 – 14, and Weeks 3 – 4 You can click on these maps to have them enlarge. Also, the discussions that go with these forecast maps can be found here (first two weeks) and here (Weeks 3 and 4).
First Temperature
And then Precipitation
The Week 3-4 Discussion is always interesting so we include it in the article. Similar discussions for the 6 -10 Day and 8 – 14 Day Forecasts are available here.
Week 3-4 Forecast Discussion Valid Sat Aug 28 2021-Fri Sep 10 2021
ENSO-neutral conditions persist in atmosphere and ocean observations across the tropical Pacific. The Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO) is active over the Indian Ocean, and is predicted by dynamical model RMM indices to progress eastward towards the Maritime Continent in the next week. Uncertainty increases substantially for the continued eastward progression of the MJO active phase in week 2. Continued progression of the MJO across the Maritime Continent would have potential impacts on the Week 3-4 period, though this is somewhat uncertain. The temperature and precipitation forecasts for the Week 3-4 period are based primarily on dynamical model guidance, including the GEFS, ECMWF, JMA, CFS, and the SubX multi-model ensemble (MME). Along with the potential impacts of the MJO, decadal trends, as well as the evolution from the week-2 forecast, were also considered.
Dynamical models show a fair amount of variability in the predicted circulation pattern for the Week 3-4 period, however there are some consistent large-scale features. A ridge and associated positive 500-hPa height anomalies are forecast over the Aleutians, extending into the North Pacific. Blends of dynamical model forecasts, including the SubX MME, predict troughing and slightly below normal heights downstream, over the Pacific Northwest. A ridge and generally positive 500-hPa height anomalies are predicted by most model solutions over the northern central CONUS. The location and strength of these anomalies vary between different models, so the manual blend of temperature and precipitation tools and the SubX MME consensus forecast tools were primarily used as guidance.
Above normal temperatures and below normal precipitation are likely for the Aleutians and southwestern Mainland Alaska, under the predicted ridge. Below normal temperatures are favored for parts of northwestern Mainland Alaska under anomalous northwesterly flow. Elsewhere, equal chances of above and below normal temperatures and precipitation are predicted for remaining regions of Mainland Alaska and the Alaska Panhandle.
Above normal temperatures are forecast across most of the western and central CONUS and the Northeast region, as a result of slightly positive mid-level height anomalies and decadal trends. Equal chances of above and below normal temperatures are forecast for parts of the Pacific Northwest and along the California coast, associated with predicted troughing over the region, and supported by the manual blend of temperature tools and the SubX MME forecast. Equal chances of above and below normal temperatures are also predicted for southern areas of the Southwest Monsoon region, with the prediction of continued precipitation for the region. Below normal temperatures are likely for the Gulf Coast region, as supported by most dynamical model temperature forecasts, and associated with both currently unusually high soil moisture conditions and a potential for tropical storm activity during the period.
Below normal precipitation is likely for much of the Pacific Northwest region, as indicated by blends of precipitation tools and the SubX MME consensus precipitation forecast. An active monsoon and above normal precipitation is predicted for much of the Southwest region by a consensus of dynamical model forecasts, and consistent with the potential impacts of the MJO at the start of the Week 3-4 period. Dynamical model forecasts predict enhanced Atlantic tropical activity and a break in the subtropical ridge leading to likely above normal precipitation for much of the Gulf Coast and Southeast regions. Under southerly flow, above normal precipitation is predicted for much of the Northern Plains region, in blended precipitation forecast tools and the SubX MME precipitation tool.
The SubX MME indicates increased probabilities of above normal temperatures for all of the Hawaiian Islands in the Week 3-4 period. Model forecasts indicate greater uncertainty for the precipitation outlook for Hawaii during the Week 3-4 period, so equal chances of above and below normal precipitation are predicted.
Rgional Reports. (These will be covered in Part II but with such a long Executive Briefing I am holding them for next week or beyond.)
Sustainable Agriculture. (This will be covered in Part II but we do not have a video for this week but we might add one)
Energy News
Here it is. We provide the Summary and some key exhibits. The full report can be accessed here.
Impact of Energy on GHG Emissions.
This was a supplement to the report last month. I do not think we reported on it it. The full report can be accessed here. The below can be considered the summary of their analysis.
The called the below Table 2 but I think they meant Table 1.
and (Table 2)
Cooling Degree Days and Heating Degree Days are defined here.
You have to read the full report to really understand this but perhaps this excerpt from the full report will help a bit.
Methodology
Among the factors affecting energy-related CO2 emissions, some are relatively stable in the short term, including consumer behavior and the energy-consuming capital stock of the economy-items such as buildings, power plants, vehicles, and manufacturing equipment. These factors set the general baseline level of energy and carbon intensity of an economy.
However, the amount of energy that consumers use with the existing stock in any given year is subject to additional variable factors, such as the rate of economic growth, energy prices, and temperatures. All of these factors can cause energy use and CO2 emissions to vary significantly from year to year.
We set up eight cases with different temperature assumptions to test this sensitivity in the United States. We used the May 2021 STEO results for 2022 as the baseline for the cases. The HDD and CDD data that we used as STEO inputs for each month came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). To compile the HDD and CDD forecasts used in STEO, we took NOAA’s monthly forecasts by state and weighted the HDDs and CDDs by state population to arrive at the census region forecasts and U.S. forecasts published in STEO. The NOAA forecasts of HDDs and CDDs cover the next 15 months, so for the May 2021 STEO, the NOAA forecast covered May 2021 through July 2022. For the remaining five months of 2022 for which NOAA did not issue a forecast, we used NOAA’s forecast for HDDs and CDDs for those months in 2021.
To construct the hot/mild summer and cold/mild winter cases, we calculated a (+/-) one standard deviation to average HDDs and CDDs-based on a sample of data from 1991 to 2020. We then applied that one standard deviation to the forecast HDDs and CDDs for each month in a given season for each of the states and then calculated population-weighted regional and U.S. averages. For this supplement, summer is April through September, and winter is October through March. For example, in the hot summer cases, we added one standard deviation to the CDD forecast for each state in each month from April through September. We then used the same population-weighting method used in the Base Case.
Because we constructed these cases to demonstrate the sensitivity of emissions to various temperature forecasts, the cases were intended to illustrate what would happen with fairly extreme temperature variation from the baseline. As noted, we did not create these cases to reflect a forecast of actual temperature outcomes or possibilities. Because we calculated the standard deviation of HDDs and CDDs at the state level and then aggregated the population weighted-values up to the regional and national level, the calculation produced more than one standard deviation outcome for the census regions and U.S. totals. This result occurs because temperature variation in individual states is more than for the country as a whole. This method assumes that each state is experiencing a one standard deviation in CDD/HDD at the same time, which historically has not happened. More often, when one area of the country is experiencing colder/warmer temperatures, another area might be experiencing more mild temperatures.
The hot summer cases have 1,694 CDDs, which would be the hottest year in our population-weighted CDD data, which go back to 1975. The cold winter cases have 4,735 HDDs, which would be the 16th coldest year in our population-weighted HDD data, which go back to 1975. Because CDDs and HDDs are weighted by population in each year, they not only represent reflect temperatures but also population shifts over time. Because of warmer average temperatures since 1975 and a shift of the relative population in the United States toward areas with warmer temperatures, the hot summer cases result in the warmest years in the data set, but the cold winter cases result in the 16th coldest year (rather than
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Forecast Sensitivity of Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Temperatures 5
the coldest year) in the data set. These same trends mean the mild winter cases result in what would be the mildest year (fewest HDDs) since 1975, but the mild summer cases would result in the 13th mildest year (fewest CDDs) since 1975.
In addition to HDDs and CDDs, the only other input variable we changed across the cases was the monthly average Henry Hub natural gas spot price because this variable can be especially sensitive to changes in weather. To generate the Henry Hub price forecasts across the cases, we used a simple linear regression1 that included among its independent variables:
HDDs
CDDs
Monthly dummy variables
The Henry Hub spot price lagged by one month
We then conducted eight separate STEO model runs using the different HDDs, CDDs, and Henry Hub natural gas spot price assumptions as inputs.
During a normal STEO model run to produce our forecast, we often make adjustments based on analyst judgement to align all components of each energy sector, including production, consumption, inventories, trade, and prices. For the scenarios in this supplement, we did not make any such adjustments and focused only on how our assumed changes in inputs affect the resulting CO2 emissions.
Results
The modeled variation in energy-related CO2 emissions compared with the Base Case are greater than the overall variations in energy demand across the cases. The variations in energy use across cases are generally symmetric. As we expected, Case 1 (Hot Summer/Cold Winter) results in the highest level of overall energy consumption among the cases. In Case 1, U.S. total energy consumption is 101.4 quadrillion British thermal units (quads), which is 3% more than in the Base Case because more energy is needed both in the winter for heating and in the summer for cooling. On the other hand, Case 4 (Mild Summer/Mild Winter) produces the lowest level of energy consumption among the cases. In Case 4, U.S. total energy consumption is 95.3 quads, which is 3% less than in the Base Case because energy consumption in both the winter heating season and the summer cooling season is less than the Base Case (Table 2).
International (The Weekly Briefing is covered in Part I. More detailed Briefings are covered in Part II.
Science Feature (This will be covered in Part II when we have one but we do not have one tonight)
On the other hand, the relationship between drought and yield might be a considered a science topic. At any rate we are now showing the USDA maps that relate where crops are grown and animals are raised to the current area of drought. There is a lot of them and I am not providing any comments as the graphics are self explanatory. The full report can be found here. And of course that means you can go there weekly to get updates.
Environmental News (This will be covered in Part II when we have a report but we do not have one tonight)
Major Sources of Information Used in this Weekly Report. We will not be using them all each week but the reader is welcome to refer to these resources.
|
Sequence of drought occurrence and impacts for commonly accepted drought types. All droughts originate from a deficiency of precipitation or meteorological drought but other types of drought and impacts cascade from this deficiency. (Source and more information: NDMC)
Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
.