Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you better read it yourself again. Nowhere does the OP ask if the population is in relation to weather, OR if the weather is validated by population. The OP is asking about humidity levels compared to where he is now in the two areas he is asking about. So the entire last couple pages are way off topic and just lame. Continue on with the stupid argument that because the population centers are small it somehow makes a difference in the weather if you want, I will not.
I get soooo tired of reading stuff like this, I really do. First off, WI's summers are far, far, far, far more comfortable than AZ's. On the stickiest, hottest summer day in WI youll maybe see a heat index reach 100 degrees. Thats BELOW the AVERAGE PHX summer day, dry or not. WI might feel stickier, but it definitely does not feel hotter. Stickier, yes, but not hotter. And on those days where it does get that hot in WI, it only lasts for a day or two, then its back in the 70s and 80s (about as perfect as summer temps can get). WI's summers are generally very pleasant for the most part. AZ's are much hotter for much longer. Lets not exaggerate now shall, we?
And regarding winter, I find our winter's here in Chicagoland to be quite humid at times, but overall are VERY dry. Humidifiers and lots of lotion are needed for some people here in winter. In fact, it gets so dry here in winter at times that it makes places like AZ feel downright sticky in comparison.
Have you ever actually lived in Arizona!!! Obviously not! The humidity plays a huge effect. 80 degrees in the midwest with 100% humidity feels like a 120 degrees. Living in any desert drier climate is way better even if the temp is 20 degrees higher. With humidity you feel sticky all the time and the air is thick and gross!
One thing to note for climate data for winters is to be very noteful on what years it covers. Mainly due to the period of the 1970's to early 80's were much colder than winters since so data that covers those years might give a significantly colder average than what is to be expected now.
Yes someone is right on the Lower Midwest can be very brown, mainly due to snowcover being not that common. (and less so over time) Though it also is the case there that with grasses and low brush only browning up for a short time mainly in January. (and in a number of years the cool weather plants barely if at all)
Not real sure who those folks are (lol)…but I have been a research climatologist for 16 years.
True that Missouri and Kansas in the 3 winter months "overall" may by slightly more mild than southern Connecticut in winter…but my original assertion - that the Midwest is colder and has a worse/longer winter than Connecticut south on the East Coast cannot be disputed based on "NOAA climate date". As I mentioned, I don’t consider Kansas or Missouri truly the Midwest. Also, I spent some time in KC in the 1990’s…it didn’t seem much different than New Haven, Trenton, NJ, or NYC in winter, only a little less snow. It was cloudier in winter in KC however than the East Coast. Also, keep in mind, that one can’t base the climate of a location on a certain time that they spent there…one of the reasons that NOAA climate folks use longer-term data (30 years). Still the numbers are the numbers…the map above shows it no warmer in most of Missouri or Kansas in December than from Connecticut/Rhode Island southward on the East Coast.
As far as New England (MA northward) vs the Midwest… the New England cold is pretty wimpy in terms of size and depth of cold… compared to the Midwest when you look at the scientific facts. Here is one more map that really tells the story. The average minimum temp in January (the coldest month of the year in the USA on average).
As you can see in the northern New England region…only far northern NY State, Vermont, central and Northern New Hampshire, and interior Maine have “lows†in the singles numbers (below 10 F).…while in the Midwest, a huge area from northern Nebraska east to Wisconsin is just as cold as Vermont, and Maine, while a sizable area from North Dakota to Minnesota blows the doors of Maine or Vermont with night time lows below 0 F (a full 10 F colder than northern most New England). This map is based on NOAA 30 year normals.
I would watch the info you get from those “staff meteorologists†who are secretly
“winter fans†up in northern New England. They’re perspective, although folksy, fun, and provincial…is often not scientifically accurate (lol). Please don’t read the New England Farmers Almanac…the authors (who are up in New England “and†snow fans)… will tell you that Concord, NH is way colder than Fargo, ND (lol).
Someone in eastern North Dakota or northern Minnesota would laugh at a typical New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont winter. Trust me.
Wavehunter, I read through this entire thread with interest, and I wanted to make a few observations about the path the thread took and a few points about the true sensible weather conditions in New England and the Midwest in winter.
I too am a researcher in the meteorological community with a keen understanding of climate and the distinct weather conditions that lead to that climate designation and the great differences in the character of the weather that can lead to what appear to be very similar climates. I also have lived in the Midwest (Chicago, Madison WI , and Columbus OH) and New England (southwest CT, Boston, and the higher elevations of northeastern VT). I also spent a few years in Grand Forks ND - which is really the northern plains and shouldn't have been included in your Midwest vs. New England, which has worse winters analysis. Also, you seemed to invoke places like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, and the Mountain West and Alaska when you wanted to use data from those locations to prove your point as though those are part of the Midwest.
The character of sensible weather conditions is quite different between New England and the Midwest and you seem to gloss over this fact, especially as those posters that lived in New England started challenging your comparisons between the two regions. An extreme example of this phenomena would be to compare Richmond Virginia to San Francisco California - both have nearly identical annual mean temperatures, yet have incredibly different temperature profiles throughout the year that lead to those annual means that are so similar. Richmond has 42 days on average over 90 degrees to San Francisco's 2 or 3, and Richmond averages 84 days with temperatures that fall below 32 degrees to San Francisco's 2 days. This is a great example of how data can be used to confuse people or win an argument. By simply looking at the annual mean temperature of the two cities, some might be easily misled that the two cities weather conditions as it relates to temperature are similar, and that doesn't even consider precipitation, wind, or cloudiness. The same could be said regarding precipitation - Seattle WA and Oklahoma City OKC have similar annual precipitation stats, but the manner in which it falls, in this case, intensity and frequency, could not be more different.
Taking this analogy to comparing the Midwest and New England winters in regards to snowfall - the Midwest's snowfalls in winter are generally frequent small accumulations (1-3 inches, 2-4 inches, and the occasional 6-8, and rarely 10, 12, 15 inches, and very rarely 20+ inches). New England also records frequent light snowfalls, but is much more likely to have very large snowfalls than most of the Midwest. Interior New England and even coastal New England receives large snowfalls, especially the 15-20 inch plus snowfalls, much more frequently than most Midwestern locations, outside of very specific, and geographically small lake effect regions. Most of the true Midwest (a majority of the area of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota) and certainly area like Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas (although I would say these are really in the plains states) don't get these very large snowstorms with the frequency of New England states. And when you start talking about 25, 36, 48, and 50+ inch events, then you certainly look to New England for storm events like that, not the Midwest outside of lake effect zones, and very little total area of the Midwest receives those lake effect snows. Most receive more frequent light snowfalls. So in regards to large crippling snowstorms, New England has the Midwest beat. And this is part of what leads to the belief by some that New England has more severe winter weather than the Midwest as a whole.
Also, in terms of total seasonal snowfall, most of New England gets more, and in most cases, significantly more, snowfall than most of the Midwest. Most of the southern half of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and most of Missouri, only get 18-24 inches of snow a year which is less than all of New England except Nantucket, Block Island, and Martha's Vineyard (and for most areas, less by a lot). Even the southern CT and RI coasts get in the 25-30 inch range. Move inland a little bit to Hartford and your up to 50 inches a year (Chicago only averages 38 inches a year and Madison averages 44 inches). Boston averages more than Chicago at 43 inches. You have to go as far north as Minneapolis to get to the same 50 inch total of Hartford. And these are all the "low" snow areas of New England. Most of interior and northern New England gets between 80-120 inches of snow a year and elevations above 2000 feet go from 150 inches to 300+ inches. The only places you find snow totals like that is in isolated lake effect area of the Midwest and even there, it is likely in the 80-160 inch range. Most of the Midwest gets far less snow over a season and far smaller snowfalls than most of New England.
Another important factor in the perception of severe winter conditions is snow depth. Due to the large seasonal snow fall, wide spread forests, and persistent cloud cover, not to mention persistent cold, most of New England experiences snow cover into the spring longer than most of the Midwest and the depths of snow are also much greater in New England and for longer periods of time. Even in somewhat snowier areas of the Midwest like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, or even Duluth, snow depths are generally 20 inches or less, usually even less than that - at around 6-12 inches. Throughout New England snow depths frequently exceed 20 inches and often reach 30-50 inches in northern and mountainous New England. Depths to 60 inches and beyond have occurred and of course in the highest elevations like Jay Peak, Mt Mansfield and the ski resort areas, depths over 100 inches occur many winters. Southern Midwest spends most of the winter without any snow depth, except right after snowfalls. The upper Midwest, outside of lake effect areas rarely have depths any greater than 15-20 inches and are usually less than that.
Other winter weather events like very damaging ice storms are also more prevalent in New England than in the Midwest and are made worse by New England's vast tree cover. Severe winter storms (nor'easters) in New England also bring damage from waves, coastal flooding, and sometimes hurricane force winds that damage more property than the Midwest equivalent in the Great Lakes, and of course, they usually bring the tremendous snowfalls to New England that are less common in the Midwest.
As one poster pointed out, using the colder mean winter temperatures in North Dakota (Northern Plains, not Midwest) and northern Minnesota extreme lows (Tower at -60 vs northern New England's -50) do little to credibly compare the two regions winter weather conditions. Extreme low temps at that level -50 to -60 really offer more of a novelty than a predictive value for the experience of most people living in New England or the Midwest. Yes, the mean temps in northern Wisconsin, and central and northern Minnesota are colder in the winter than most of New England, but that addresses only one variable in a person's experience of the weather and that area is a relatively small percentage of the overall Midwest. Much of the Midwest is similar temperature wise or warmer than New England. The southern half of the Midwest is most certainly warmer and has far less snow than all of New England. As you move north in the Midwest, temperatures are similar to much of New England. As you move north in New England, only far northern Wisconsin and central and northern Minnesota routinely get colder than the coldest areas of northern New England.
So yes, I can agree with you that those distinct areas of the Midwest get colder extremes than New England, even northern New England. And windspeeds are generally higher in the midwest than interior New England which can create lower windchills more often. But, following the passage of very strong cold fronts, both the northern areas of New England and the northern areas of the Midwest can experience extreme windchills that are often very similar. And in high elevation New England, extreme windchills are even more frequent than in the northern Midwest. Of course, what coastal New England lacks in extreme cold, it often makes up for with much higher wind speeds like lakefront areas in the Midwest.
Sure, the media has an east coast bias, but this is true of most things. But, this doesn't account for all of the belief by some New Englander's that their winter weather is more severe than that of the Midwest. Both New England and the Midwest experience severe winter weather. Your point that a larger geographic area of the upper Midwest experiences colder temperatures on average in the winter than large parts of New England may be true, but it ignores many other important factors. For one, most of the Midwest is not as cold as this relatively small part of the Midwest you are highlighting and most of the Midwest is not as cold as New England. Also, as was highlighted earlier: New England is snowier than the Midwest - with higher seasonal snow totals than the Midwest as a region, even higher than the super cold regions you keep pointing out, New England has larger snowfalls more frequently than the Midwest, New England has more frequent and more destructive coastal storms, more severe ice storms, has widespread deeper snow depths for a longer period often extending well into the second half of April in northern New England, and of course is quite cold, although not quite as cold as the coldest regions of the Midwest.
This combination of severe cold, widespread heavier snowfalls that reach greater depths throughout the winter and last longer into the spring, ice storms, and severe damaging coastal storms, are the sensible weather events that lead many of those in New England, especially those that have also lived in the Midwest to come to a conclusion that New England often has more severe winters than most of the Midwest.
Yes, if you want the chance to experience the coldest conditions east of the Rockies, head to far northern Minnesota. If you want the most broadly severe winter conditions east of the Rockies including severe cold, really big snowfalls, particularly damaging ice storms, the longest lasting and deepest snow cover, and violent and damaging coastal storms, head to New England.
I think my point was that due to the East Coast being the biggest media market in the USA…everything is often hyped up for marketing reasons – including winter/cold/snow. Yes, it’s plenty cold/snowy in Northern New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine…but folks in the West, Midwest, and Great Lakes contend with even colder/snowier weather much more often…and it’s never the news item it is when its cold in the east, northeast, New England…etc. I’m sure all the folks up in the New England area are justly proud of their toughness to winter…but in truth the are many areas of the USA that are far worse in winter. .
I totally agree with this statement. The media bias in terms of weather and the east coast never ceases to amaze me. There are places out west in the mountain regions that easily blow any of the snowfalls back east out of the water. Even when a place like Spokane gets a record snowfall over 100 inches. Even when Anchorage (a decent size city) gets meter upon meter of snow there is hardly a mention of it. But give a city like Chicago, NYC, or Boston 20 inches and everyone acts like they get the most snow in the world as if the world is going to end....
I remember when Mt. Baker in Washington state recorded a world record for seasonal snowfall (nearly 1,140 inches). And there was hardly a peep from places like the Weather Channel or CNN.
Part of it is the fact that the population centers of Canada and the United States are on the east coast. So the media much more slanted towards the east coast.....
I totally agree with this statement. The media bias in terms of weather and the east coast never ceases to amaze me. There are places out west in the mountain regions that easily blow any of the snowfalls back east out of the water. Even when a place like Spokane gets a record snowfall over 100 inches. Even when Anchorage (a decent size city) gets meter upon meter of snow there is hardly a mention of it. But give a city like Chicago, NYC, or Boston 20 inches and everyone acts like they get the most snow in the world as if the world is going to end....
I remember when Mt. Baker in Washington state recorded a world record for seasonal snowfall (nearly 1,140 inches). And there was hardly a peep from places like the Weather Channel or CNN.
Part of it is the fact that the population centers of Canada and the United States are on the east coast. So the media much more slanted towards the east coast.....
First of all, "New England" is not synonymous with "East Coast." Second of all, snow in New England (including Boston) is never a big deal with the media. Large snowfall amounts in a place like, say, Washington DC, on the other hand, are a big deal. Because that doesn't happen very often.
It's not that the media has some regional bias; the effect that major snowstorms have on cities that are largely underprepared for them is what makes the event newsworthy. A record snowfall on top of a mountain is not pertinent to as many people.
By the way, the snowiest populated place in the US outside of Alaska is Boonville, New York, which averages 220 inches per year.
First of all, "New England" is not synonymous with "East Coast." Second of all, snow in New England (including Boston) is never a big deal with the media. Large snowfall amounts in a place like, say, Washington DC, on the other hand, are a big deal. Because that doesn't happen very often.
It's not that the media has some regional bias; the effect that major snowstorms have on cities that are largely underprepared for them is what makes the event newsworthy. A record snowfall on top of a mountain is not pertinent to as many people.
By the way, the snowiest populated place in the US outside of Alaska is Boonville, New York, which averages 220 inches per year.
Still doesn't change the fact that there is immense media bias on stations such as the weather channel etc.
I'm not talking about snowfall on top of a mountain. There are "populated" cities out west that get more snow than boonville, NY.
Lander, Wyoming and blue Canyon, California come to mind. There are plenty more... Of course those areas are not as big in terms of population. But the distribution of heavy snowfall out west is much bigger in terms of geographical coverage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong!
