Why does Rochester have a colder Dfb climate compared to Minneapolis's Dfa? (St. Paul: live, moving)

[Yamato2]

I always check the weather forecasts for both cities and I consistently notice Rochester having slightly cooler temperatures. Even though Rochester is further south why does Rochester have a colder climate than Minneapolis?

[Ursicinus]

Might have something to do with the TC being a much bigger city with more absorbent surfaces, so it stays warmer both in winter and summer.

[pvoyd]

Somewhat off topic, but the TC is so large geographically, I consistently see a 1-5F difference between southwest suburbs/exurbs (Prior Lake) and the northeast ones (White Bear Lake.) Southwest is warmer.

[tijlover]

Altitude would account for the cooler temp's. According to Wiki, Minneapolis sits at 830 feet, St. Paul at 702 feet, and Rochester at 1030 feet. And, if you check Average Annual Windspeeds of the cities in this country, Rochester has a higher windspeed than Minneapolis, more colder windchill in winter.

It's like AZ. Flagstaff is at around 7000 feet, rarely gets above 85 degrees in summer, Phoenix is at 1100 feet, and hotter yet, Lake Havasu at 550 feet, and Tucson cooler than Phoenix at 2450 feet.

I'm a bit surprised at the difference in altitude between Minneapolis & St. Paul, because any time I drove to St. Paul from Minneapolis, I didn't realize I was going downhill, so with that 128 feet difference, I'm sure the temp slightly varies as well. The lowest spot in the state for altitude is Winona, MN, right on the Mississippi river, and I recall the great flood they had there in 1965 or 1964.

I lived in Minneapolis for 21 years, and when returning to Rochester to visit family, I always got the impression I was going downhill all the way! Not so!

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by Yamato2

I always check the weather forecasts for both cities and I consistently notice Rochester having slightly cooler temperatures. Even though Rochester is further south why does Rochester have a colder climate than Minneapolis?

The major metropolitan area of the Twin Cities creates its own heat. This is a common and wel-known effect.

URBAN HEAT ISLANDS

As for the fact that Rochester is 'further south' than the Twin Cities? It's barely half a degree closer to the equator (from the equator to either pole is ninety degrees of latitude). Industrial (and geographic) differences are much more likely to play roles in temperature differentiation than such a very minor difference in latitude.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Altitude would account for the cooler temp's. According to Wiki, Minneapolis sits at 830 feet, St. Paul at 702 feet, and Rochester at 1030 feet. And, if you check Average Annual Windspeeds of the cities in this country, Rochester has a higher windspeed than Minneapolis, more colder windchill in winter.

It's like AZ. Flagstaff is at around 7000 feet, rarely gets above 85 degrees in summer, Phoenix is at 1100 feet, and hotter yet, Lake Havasu at 550 feet, and Tucson cooler than Phoenix at 2450 feet.

I'm a bit surprised at the difference in altitude between Minneapolis & St. Paul, because any time I drove to St. Paul from Minneapolis, I didn't realize I was going downhill, so with that 128 feet difference, I'm sure the temp slightly varies as well. The lowest spot in the state for altitude is Winona, MN, right on the Mississippi river, and I recall the great flood they had there in 1965 or 1964.

I lived in Minneapolis for 21 years, and when returning to Rochester to visit family, I always got the impression I was going downhill all the way! Not so!

being closer to the sun, Rochester should be significantly warmer...there's something else at work here, something sinister

[Yamato2]

Originally Posted by tijlover

I'm a bit surprised at the difference in altitude between Minneapolis & St. Paul, because any time I drove to St. Paul from Minneapolis, I didn't realize I was going downhill, so with that 128 feet difference, I'm sure the temp slightly varies as well. The lowest spot in the state for altitude is Winona, MN, right on the Mississippi river, and I recall the great flood they had there in 1965 or 1964.

I noticed that St. Paul has a little higher monthly average highs than Minneapolis-St. Paul from 1981-2010. St. Paul is almost like Chicago.

St. Paul:
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
26, 31, 43, 58, 71, 80, 85, 82, 73, 59, 42, 29

Minneapolis:
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
24, 29, 41, 58, 69, 79, 83, 80, 72, 58, 41, 27


Climate Saint Paul - Minnesota and Weather averages Saint Paul
Climate Minneapolis - Minnesota and Weather averages Minneapolis

[Googol]

My rather low meteorology/geography IQ just went up a few points reading this great informative thread

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by Yamato2

I noticed that St. Paul has a little higher monthly average highs than Minneapolis-St. Paul from 1981-2010. St. Paul is almost like Chicago.

St. Paul:
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
26, 31, 43, 58, 71, 80, 85, 82, 73, 59, 42, 29

Minneapolis:
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
24, 29, 41, 58, 69, 79, 83, 80, 72, 58, 41, 27


Climate Saint Paul - Minnesota and Weather averages Saint Paul
Climate Minneapolis - Minnesota and Weather averages Minneapolis

Perhaps St. Paul can feature that in selling the city to people moving there. The Warmer Twin?

[Yamato2]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Perhaps St. Paul can feature that in selling the city to people moving there. The Warmer Twin?

Yes, definitely. I am surprised St. Paul is so noticeably warmer on average.