Chicago not cold at all as a city (Manhattan: home, college)

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

I don't know why it's so hard to be realistic about winter. It's often pretty harsh here, but you really can't quantify it as the worst. Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee are all at similar latitudes and are in the same region, so winter is quite similar there. The only major cities that are significantly farther north, and that actually have winter weather, are Minneapolis and Boston. Seattle and Portland are heavily influenced by their west coast locations. Denver and Salt Lake City have sun more often then not over the winter, and it's dry there. You don't have the damp chill that seeps into your bones like it does around the Great Lakes. Also, Denver regularly has warm winds that sweep down over the mountains to quickly melt the snow. So..

1. Minneapolis
2. Boston
3. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee
4. Denver, Salt Lake City

There, that should settle it!

Well, almost.

Boston is only marginally north of Chicago ( follow the latitudinal lines),and is actually a little warmer in winter. Buffalo is colder than Boston, and has significantly more snow.

I think that what you're trying to do is to combine low temps with snowfall and get the cumulative "winter experience". If this is the case, then Boston really should rank below Buffalo and Milwaukee, and possibly Chicago, as well. I've lived in Boston/Cambridge for a quarter-century, and I've never found winters oppressive here ( much milder, both in temps and snowfall, than my hometown of Burlington, VT.)

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by j_cat

For what it's worth, the most obvious source, a certain public-access encyclopedia, is not showing that. Anyway, no point going round on this one, I'm just perplexed is all.

Are people taking account how continuous Chicago's snowfall can be, for weeks on end? And yes, some melts off in the process.

Ah, forget it, lol. Feel free to reply if you need to.

What does that mean? From 100 years of weather stats:

If you look up the averages, from December 1st to March 31st, the city has a fairly consistent 2% to 3% chance of seeing 3" of now or more on any specific date. The highest rates are the 2nd week of January, where there is over 4% chance of getting 3" of snow or more. The chances of getting 2" or more of snow on any given date is 4% to 6%, and the average chance of getting even a dusting of snow is around 10% to 14%, with the highest chance peaking at the end of January at around 15%.

The chances of getting even a dusting are barely above 10% on any given day. The chances of getting anything measured in inches is barely half that.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

What does that mean?

Since this one is still being batted around, I swear that in Jan/Feb 2011 there was at least one instance of flurries for at least a week straight. Call me crazy.

[knitgirl]

Originally Posted by j_cat

Chicago humidity by month:



Winter mornings are right in line with the national average, winter afternoons are higher than the national average.

This doesn't prove that Chicago winters are DAMP - just that they are in line with U.S. average. It's a scientific fact that cold is is normally drier than warm air.

[j_cat]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

This doesn't prove that Chicago winters are DAMP - just that they are in line with U.S. average. It's a scientific fact that cold is is normally drier than warm air.

True, but take Boston, which has similar temperatures and which most people would consider damp. Turns out it's actually drier than Chicago.

Boston:


Chicago:


And then let's look at a truly dry city with similar temperatures.

Casper, Wyoming:


I think people have an idea that Chicago must be dry, being so far inland, and I used to assume that too, but living here has corrected me.

It's true that precipitation is not very high here, but that's another issue.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

I guess last winter's blizzard was just a hallucination.

If you remember it was the exception to the rule rather than THE rule.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by j_cat

I think people have an idea that Chicago must be dry, being so far inland, and I used to assume that too, but living here has corrected me.

It's true that precipitation is not very high here, but that's another issue.

That inland dry works in the Great Plains as the Pacific moisture is pretty well dropped over the Rockies.

But Chicago is Midwest, not Great Plains, and our moisture doesn't come from the same place. Or even the same direction.

That's a generally flat and long stretch of real estate that stretches north from the Gulf of Mexico into the Great Lakes region. And it is that huge Gulf, an arm of the Atlantic, that gives us our humidity and literally drenches places like St. Lois and Cincinnati in it.

[HockeyGuy85]

So being from Upstate NY, Chicago winters shouldnt be nearly as bad im assuming.

I can see why the biggest con for Chicago is the winter. For most people that move to Chicago, they either get no winter or a very mild winter where theyre from. Most of the country either gets no bad winters or if they do, mild ones.

Chicago is on such a large scale. It averages 38 inches of snow a year, which is a tad over the average amount across the US. Upstate cities average at LEAST in the 60s like Albany and up to 110 inches like Buffalo and Syracuse.

If Upstate NY was as big a draw as Chicago, then youd have a reason to complain.

[HockeyGuy85]

Originally Posted by ChikidII

I think Chicago gets this rep too because it's so big compared to other cities in the region. Out of the top 5 largest cities in the U.S. Chicago is the coldest. Out of the top 10 Largest cities in the country it is the coldest. Out of the top 10 largest cities in N.A. it is one of the coldest. Catch my drift?

Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Detroit are cities that are just as cold if not colder yet Chicago gets noted more for being cold because it is the biggest. It's kind of like how everyone talks about how cold Montreal is but no one talks about Quebec City. Or Moscow is cold as hell but I am sure there are cities that are much colder in Russia that are big. If Chicago was the size of Madison of Wisconsin the attribute of being so cold would not be as important as it is now.

To the average person, Chicago winters suck.

The average person meaning, person who comes from no winters or mild winters.

So yeah, because Chicago is on such a large scale, its winters to the average person who would move there may seem worse than they are.

To me however, Chicago's weather really is no different than NYC or Philly. Im from Upstate NY.

[HockeyGuy85]

Originally Posted by MiniMissMixxMatchMaxx

i'm from the northeast, upstate new york. chicago weather is not as bad as i thought it would be. i expected hellish coldness and snow

Haha, bingo!

Its just the scale of Chicago really. Because its the 3rd largest city in the country, and its a big draw for the average person, they think the winters suck.

Pfff, I expect to see something at least similar to Upstate NY winter, and its not the case whatsoever.