This story is made possible through a partnership between Flatwater Free Press and Grist, a nonprofit environmental media organization.
When Emily Elowsky’s air conditioner went out on a hot July day, the heat and humidity in her house felt oppressive.
After putting up blackout curtains and taking a cold shower, she hoped the nighttime temperatures would bring some relief. By 11:30 p.m., though, the house was around a suffocating 82 degrees.
“I tried to just tough it out,” Elowsky said. “I was like, ‘Well, if I just fall asleep, it’ll be fine.”
Extreme heat waves and 100-degree days often get the attention in climate change. But Nebraska’s minimum temperatures also have shot up, presenting an often unseen, overnight threat to people, livestock and crops.
This July, the average minimum temperature in Nebraska – 64.6 degrees – was tied for the state’s eighth-warmest over the past 131 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s 3.7 degrees above the average from the previous century.
While Nebraska’s maximum temperatures were around average this past August, the state’s minimum temperatures were much above average, said Eric Hunt, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln agriculture meteorology and climate resilience extension educator.
The trend has implications for Nebraska’s climate. In the coming decades, Nebraska’s minimum temps could be in the low 70s – more akin to southeast Kansas and southern Missouri, Hunt said.
And it threatens the critical reprieve that the human body needs from a cooler nighttime.
Heat can stress the cardiovascular system, kidneys, respiratory system and mental health, said Jesse Bell, director of the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s water, climate and health program.
“All these systems in our body are being impacted every time we experience extreme heat events. … It’s not just the extreme on the high end, but it’s also the minimum temperatures as well,” Bell said.
Rising nighttime temperatures could also threaten Nebraska’s ag interests – both corn and livestock require optimal minimum temperatures to cool down.
Hidden danger
During the recent early September heat wave, when temps hit the mid-90s and lows stayed in the 70s, Pat Wilson-Johnson came to the Salvation Army’s North Corps Community Center for lunch.
The location functions as a cooling center during high heat days. Scott Harris, who works at the center, said many people will have lunch and then sit in the lobby to cool off and drink water. The location also gives out bags of ice for people to stay cool when they leave.
From growing up in Omaha, Wilson-Johnson remembers cool summer nights when she could let in the breeze from an open window. Now, she said, that just lets in the humidity.
“Nine o’clock at night, it’s still 90, 91 degrees. That’s not right,” Wilson-Johnson said.
The Siena Francis House operates another cooling center during heat advisories. While they’re typically open from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., Kristy McKern, director of case management and permanent supportive housing, said the organization has staff and protocols in case people need resources outside of these times.
In Lincoln, the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department created an extreme heat response plan over a year ago. While the department has focused on high daytime temperatures, they are beginning to look at nighttime temperature data, a department spokesperson said.
Right now, the Lincoln area has one cooling center that operates overnight.
Hunt pointed to the historic 1995 Chicago heat wave – in which over 500 people died – to illustrate the risks from high minimum temperatures.
“That was actually a pretty high mortality event, and the air temperatures over there were insanely high,” Hunt said. “But it probably really was the minimum temperatures staying in the 80s overnight for two, three days in a row that really was actually what killed people, because … no one ever got a chance to cool off.”
These high minimum temperatures don’t affect everyone equally. People more at risk include the elderly and those with certain health conditions and on certain medications. It’s also more dangerous for people who have to function in the heat: those without working air conditioning, people who are homeless, student athletes and people who work outside.
“We have to make sure that we’re addressing extreme heat impacts now, since we’re in a changed climate, so that we are better adapted to the impacts that they’re going to face into the future,” Bell said. “A lack of planning and preparedness is what causes the adverse human health outcomes of these types of events.”
Siena Francis and its partners travel throughout Omaha during high heat days, providing water, snacks and sunscreen to folks who are staying outside. The organization works with some people who have mental illnesses and substance abuse problems.
“A lot of these people don’t have access to just the essentials like you and I would have,” McKern said. “So again, for us to be able to provide those things to them, so they don’t end up in the hospital or they don’t end up dehydrated or passing out or fainting.”
Bell said that on average in the United States, more people die from heat-related deaths than any other weather event.
And it matters even when it’s not deadly. High heat at night also makes it difficult to sleep. According to a report organized by Climate Central, residents in Omaha and Lincoln are estimated to have lost about 30 hours of sleep annually between 2020 and 2025 due to heat, and three of those hours are attributed to climate change.
For those with air conditioning, the heat continuing into the night can mean higher energy bills. Residents living in low income housing or older homes and buildings that haven’t been weatherized could be more susceptible.
Elowsky’s August electricity bill was more than double what she paid in April.
“There’s a lot of homes that are as old as mine … if they haven’t had their windows redone. … I mean, they’re basically sieves for this heat and for the cold,” Elowsky said.
Slinky the ferret. Photo by Eric
Gregory for the Flatwater Free Press
This summer, Steph Earhart blacked out windows to control the apartment’s temperature and save on electricity. Even with the air conditioning on and a fan blowing, Earhart has woken up multiple nights sweating.
The stress of the nighttime heat came to a head when Earhart’s air conditioner went out in the middle of the night during a July weekend as the Lincoln resident was taking care of four pet ferrets.
When the thermostat hit 80 degrees at 2 a.m., Earhart drove to their family’s house in a panic, worried the ferrets would overheat.
“I am hot, exhausted, and now far away from the place I’m able to control my life,” Earhart said. “It hit me that I had to basically upend everything in my life because my apartment that I had created so I could exist in had become unlivable.”
New livestock reality
The rising nighttime temperatures also pose a concern for livestock in eastern and central Nebraska where humidity is rising.
The combination of the two prevents animals from sweating and cooling off effectively, said Rick Stowell, a UNL professor and animal environment extension specialist. Western Nebraska also has seen a rise in nighttime temperatures and humidity, but it is starting from a lower baseline.
Livestock, including cattle, pigs and chickens, make up a number of Nebraska’s leading commodities.
Cooling off at night can be essential for livestock that typically offload the heat they experience during the day.
“The effects of heat stress overall tend to affect larger, more productive animals the most,” Stowell said. “So, if you think about heavy animals, mature animals, fat cattle and a sow, for example, or a high-producing dairy cow, they are generating a lot more body heat, and so they have a lot more heat to get rid of.”
Some heat-stressed animals, like a finishing pig, a steer in a feed lot or a broiler chicken, will typically stop eating and stop putting on weight, Stowell said. A dairy cow’s milk production might drop. A pregnant animal, like a sow or cow, could lose the pregnancy.
Worst case, producers with feedlots could have animals die. The risk grows as the animals gain weight and are nearly ready to go to market, Stowell said. The loss to the farmer is higher then because of the money they have invested.
“Most livestock producers and poultry producers (in eastern Nebraska) are well aware that the situation is getting more challenging,” Stowell said.
To adapt, producers are building more shade structures in feedlots, something Stowell has seen more of over the last 20 years. Other strategies: increased ventilation in buildings, altered feeding schedules and sprinkling water on the ground and in feedlots for cooling.
“I don’t think there’s any question that every industry in the livestock industry sector in the Midwest would say that heat challenges, summer conditions are … a significant issue that we’re going to have to deal (with) more and more in the future,” Stowell said.
Crop yields
Nebraska’s two leading crops also can be harmed – which in turn would harm a farmer’s bottom line – when nighttime temperatures stay high.
Those nighttime higher temps mean that corn and soybeans use more energy instead of storing it. That can impact growth, said Tom Hoegemeyer, a retired UNL professor of practice specializing in agronomy and horticulture, and George Graef, a UNL agronomy and horticulture professor focused on soybean breeding and genetics.
Depending on the timing, duration and intensity of these temperatures, the higher nighttime temps could result in smaller and fewer seeds and biomass for soybeans, Graef said.
And if there are multiple warm days and nights, corn crops begin “shutting down and losing a week or more of filling time in late summer and early fall that we would normally get, which pretty significantly impacts yield,” Hoegemeyer said.
Nighttime temperatures over 70 degrees are likely detrimental for corn crops, Hoegemeyer said. Soybean yields begin to see negative impacts when nighttime temperatures are around 73 degrees, Graef said. The more nights with high nighttime temperatures, the more both crops are impacted.
In the short term, there is concern that these higher nighttime temps combined with drought could mean increased usage of groundwater in irrigated production, Hoegemeyer said.
Fungi and bacteria could also hurt corn crops when it’s hot and humid at night, which means more chemicals could be sprayed on the crop to protect them, Hoegemeyer said.
Given these nighttime temperatures, Graef said the soybean industry is employing new technology and capabilities to evaluate and adapt the crop to the changing conditions. He’s confident new variants will be identified.
While the corn industry has been aware of this issue for the last 30 years and has been able to adapt corn crops to better tolerate these conditions, Hoegemeyer is worried how effective this will be long term.
“If you believe the projections as to what temperatures will be like, say, by 2100, we may not be able to do that,” Hoegemeyer said. “There are limits to what we can do with genetics and technology.”
17 Comments
“If you believe the projections as to what temperatures will be like, say, by…”
Yes, IF you believe such things. But therein lies the problem. These dire predictions of the allegedly inevitable coming doom have been proven wrong time and time again.
First, it was known as global cooling in the 1970s, and we were told that we would all freeze to death. That naturally never happened, so the “experts” had to abandon that doomsday scenario entirely.
By the 2000s it has been rebranded as global warming instead, and Al Gore began touring the country with his now infamous “hockey stick graph” to tell us all that temperatures were suddenly shooting through the roof. And he made many predictions that all snow would disappear, glaciers would melt and polar bears would drown. None of that happened (polar bears can swim, so what the hell was he even thinking) and his predictions were embarrassingly wrong time and time again.
So there was another rebrand effort. Now it’s “climate change.” This term is much safer, because it can’t be proven wrong. If the “experts” make a prediction which later doesn’t come true, well thats actually proof of their claim, you see! It’s climate change and it just changed! Ah ha!
And naturally here is Flatwater, the same organization that doesn’t know the definition of “notoriety” and forgot how many people are running for governor, rushing to do their part to promote the new sandwich board doomsday scenario. Naturally!
I see that there are plenty of people who will deny what is happening right before their eyes. My experience comes from the history I lived in the far northwestern corner of Nebraska. I moved to Crawford in 1995; very few people had air conditioners. If you wanted cooling that was not expensive, you used a swamp cooler, using these at night, or all day if they were in the shady part of the house. This slowly started to change through the 2000’s. By the early 2010s, swamp coolers did not work so well; the average humidity was rising during the day and at night, and average lows were climbing. By the time I left in 2019, swamp coolers were worthless in this new environment. I do not need some unintelligent person trying to tell me that climate change is a hoax; I have lived it, and it is here. The impacts on our farmers and ranchers are becoming noticeable even to the uninitiated. These changes are speeding up, and everyone will need to adjust; that will not be easy.
Are you arguing that the weather has changed since 1995? Really?
Who exactly is trying to tell you climate change (aka, “weather”) is a hoax? Or is that just another strawman?
” I have lived it, and it is here.”
Sorry, but one person’s 30 years of experience with swamp coolers is not science.
I agree, but I would go even farther.
Not only is the “swamp cooler” argument anecdotal, but it’s also hearsay. He only implied that he personally had 30 years of experience with the issue, he actually said “very few people” used air conditioners instead of swamp coolers. He is citing the experiences of people other than himself, which makes this claim secondhand information at best. Not only is that not scientific evidence, but it would also be tossed out of a courtroom because it isn’t legal evidence either.
It’s not scientific, it’s not legal, it’s not logical and it may not even be factual either. It’s literally nothing at all. But this person in an anonymous internet comment section is trying to pass it off as some kind of homespun wisdom based on his alleged past experience living in Nebraska. It’s incredibly disingenuous and dishonest to spread this kind of blatant misinformation.
“He is citing the experiences of people other than himself, which makes this claim secondhand information at best. ”
Nice catch–I missed that aspect of his comment.
Logic so circular, it could make a helicopter blade dizzy. Looks like your other username is convinced, Owen.
#1, Personal attacks are against the rules of this site. Even though the moderators seem to have no intention of enforcing those rules, such obvious trolling still undermines any legitimacy your argument may have.
#2, Nothing you said actually addresses any particular point any person has made.
#3, Who is Owen? And what other user name are you accusing him of using?
And do I need to point out for the umpteenth billion time that this is an anonymous comment section with no login mechanism? If you think other users are not who they claim to be, take it up with the designer who decided to set up these comments with fewer security features than a 1998 AOL chat room.
I don’t have a dog in this fight but if you’re so concerned, then why aren’t you working at FFP moderating comments here if it has, “fewer security features than a 1998 AOL chat room”?
There seems to be a bigger stink about folks dog-piling an individual who habitually comments here while completely hand-waving that person’s penchant for using strawmen nine out of ten arguments, and favoring contemptuous ad-hominems rather than substantive talking points (i.e. if I say “your highness” condescendingly, I’m doing the same thing).
This person’s writing style is obvious and they repost over the same article multiple times, having full dinner table discussions with themselves under fabricated namesakes.
I don’t even disagree the comments read more like immature playground banter rather than a town square discussion, but as far as the dedicated, anonymous yet polyonymous lad or lady mentioned above goes, where’s the resolve to uphold rules against flooding the comments with spam, redundancy, or pervasive immaturity? What’s the point of FPP having a section to weigh in if it’s moderated so poorly this person can show up to “slam dunk” everybody who seems to disagree with them what looks like multiple times a day? Is this static something you intended to facilitate?
Flatwater, can you please weigh in on what your goals are in using this format for your comments, and how it achieves them? Thanks.
#1 Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
#2 It refutes none of my above points about the blatantly wrong predictions made by “experts” over the many decades (going back even before your anecdote from 1995).
#3 I had a swamp cooler in 1995 too and it didn’t work then either. They were just a dumb fad that was never a good idea.
Using a 1990s fad as a form of scientific proof? Where are my parachute pants? Maybe I can use them to prove black holes aren’t real.
Don’t reply to the trolls. That’s what they want. Ignore them. They hate that.
“Elowsky’s August electricity bill was more than double what she paid in April.”
If FFP is accurate, her heating bill for October through March will be less…much less. Right?
That is a very reasonable question. Because common sense would dictate that if Flatwater is threatening that temperatures are rising, then logically that means your air conditioning bill will be higher in summer, but your heating bill will be lower in winter too, right? But there are two major reasons that Flatwater is not going to have the courage to answer you on this question.
Firstly, it stumbles across the reason why they had to rebrand to climate change. When Al Gore was on his crusade to convince everyone of “global warming,” he had to do one critical thing that he could not do: Demonstrate actual warming taking place. Since Al famously failed in his task, they had to rebrand to “climate change” instead. Under this model they can threaten us with warming when it’s convenient, but if it doesn’t happen they don’t have to be held accountable for failing, because they didn’t promise warming, they promised change! This allows them to threaten you in whatever way the weather pattern supports at this moment. If it’s hot outside they threaten warming, and you check your energy bill and feel afraid. If it’s cold outside they threaten cooling and you check your gas bill to confirm the horror. And if any other sort of weather happens, good or bad, they threaten you with that too and when you look outside they appear to be right. But there never has to be any consistency in the threats, which is extremely convenient for their cause up until someone starts asking too many questions about the lack of consistency.
The second reason is actually even more interesting, because it deals with the great contradiction of all left-wing thinking. The left pays lip service to many “social justice” ideals, including the idea that big corporations are bad and that the economy should serve the needs of the common worker. Lowering your energy bills to a reasonable rate would appear to be part of that, except that like many of their other ideals, it contradicts other objectives they have. To lower your energy bill they would need to produce more energy, more efficiently, at a lower cost, and distribute that energy across a reliable grid. But they can’t do that, because it would require energy sources they have branded as evil, such as gas, coal and nuclear. They are only allowed to endorse “green” energy like wind and solar, even though these energy types can fall prey to the very same weather patterns the left says will soon destroy us. These energy sources rely on the sun shining and the wind blowing, but these same things are also signs of the “climate change” boogey man coming to get us!
You see this same pattern over and over again with the left. They have so many golden calves, they can’t decide which one takes precedent over the others when inevitable conflicts emerge. They oppose oil pipelines, but support carbon pipelines that have all the same problems. They say women are a disadvantaged group, but they can’t keep men out of women’s sports because that would be discriminatory against men who claim to be women. They want to change the narrative of this election to affordability issues, but they can’t appease their own base by avoiding the topics that scare off normal people.
Here is the absolutely crazy part you aren’t going to believe at first, but everyone needs to hear about this because it’s the perfect example of what I’m talking about and how unspeakably insane the far left has become. I want everyone who reads this to look it up yourself so that you believe me. The Boston Globe just recently published several articles about a LGBTQ+ bar in Massachusetts that was still enforcing COVID mask mandates in 2026. Yes, please go fact check me on this by reading the original article in the Boston Globe, I promise that this is real (or at least it’s real according to the Boston Globe, which would be unlikely to lie about something like this that makes their own cause look so absurd).
Not only did the bar still have a COVID mask mandate in place, but it was an outrageously strict mandate that demanded “N95 or better” masks. Literally there was a bar full of far left political activists wearing gas masks while they were trying to sip on whatever goofy drinks this place must serve. This is not a joke or satire. The Boston Globe really reported this as a fact.
And it doesn’t end there. The bar has been hemorrhaging money at an insane rate and is on the verge of being evicted for thousands of dollars in unpaid rent to their landlord. Out of desperation, they decided to have a “mask optional” night one time a week in the hopes of drawing in new clientele. This plan immediately blew up in their faces when the “Queer COVID-Conscious Collective of Western Massachusetts” (yes, it really is called that) accused them of ableism and many worse thought crimes, resulting them them being bombarded with death threats, bomb threats, doxxing and all sorts of other shenanigans. And there are many other outlandish details in the article, I suggest you read it yourself to get the full effect.
But my point being this: The left is nothing more than a vague alliance of highly atomized “social justice” causes that barely get along among themselves. They can’t deliver lower energy bills, because they say that would destroy the environment. They can’t help one disadvantaged group, because there is inevitably another group that considers it discrimination. The only thing the left can ever accomplish is grasping at authoritarian government power, the outcome of which is a lower standard of living for everyone, leaving everyone a lot angrier than they were before. And that is all that will ever come from these “climate change” scare tactics. The environment won’t get better, but your energy bill will get worse, and strange bars with bad policies will go to war with themselves in the meantime.
That’s a great deal to digest, You Wouldn’t.
I doubt the FFP folks appreciate it much.
“In the short term, there is concern that these higher nighttime temps combined with drought could mean increased usage of groundwater in irrigated production, Hoegemeyer said.”
The science tells us that more heat and humidity will result in more evaporation, more clouds, and then more rain; the net result being less groundwater irrigation.
Sorry FFP, that’s the science. Why did you leave it out?
If you don’t believe climate change is real, I give you the Perkins County Canal Project to siphon water out of Colorado and into western Nebraska. Nebraska is, indeed, worried about the future of water in the state.
States disputing water rights is not evidence of climate change. It’s been an issue of debate in our nation since at least 1850. No doubt European nations debated water rights for many centuries before that.
These are the kinds of intellectually shallow arguments climate alarmists resort to: Swamp coolers and multi-century old legal issues are somehow proof that we are all going to be killed by the weather boogey man.
Folks living in and around Nebraska has always worried about water; this worry goes back 300 years (at least)! This is well before the industrial revolution, right?