Frigid Hump Day in Midwest: Chicago Won’t Get Above Zero, -20F Wind Chills

January 4th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Arctic air is making a return after a rather balmy December, and the Midwest will have a frigid wintry Wednesday this week after 2-4 inches of new snow falls.

By Wednesday morning, most of the U.S. will be below freezing, and the coldest air will be plunging southeastward across the upper midwest into northern Illinois and Indiana:

NWS statistical forecast temperatures for Wednesday morning, Jan. 7, 2014.

NWS statistical forecast temperatures for Wednesday morning, Jan. 7, 2014.

Midday Wednesday looks like much of the Midwest won’t even get above zero deg. F, even in Chicago (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com)…

Temperature forecast for midday Wednesday (Jan. 7, 2014) from the GFS model.

Temperature forecast for midday Wednesday (Jan. 7, 2014) from the GFS model.

…and stiff 20 mph winds will cause midday windchill temperatures of -20 F or lower. Across Iowa and Illinois, temperatures by Wednesday evening will be 30 to 40 deg. below normal for this time of year.


30 Responses to “Frigid Hump Day in Midwest: Chicago Won’t Get Above Zero, -20F Wind Chills”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    It seems like global warming brings nothing but cold.

  2. Gijs says:

    No, that’s winter. Winter is bringing the cold.

  3. Max Dupilka says:

    But the good news is that the cold spell looks to be rather short-lived. Come the next week the NCEP 850mb temperature anomalies show the US and Canada back to near to above normal. And an almost “heat wave” for western Canada. Not so good for the natural gas futures prices.

  4. Lewis says:

    A quote for the scientists among you.
    From the book review of Philip Ball’s Serving the Reich – by Jeremy Bernstein in Sat’s Wall St. Journal. – page c7. Last paragraph.

    Why should we be interested in this now? There is a lesson to be learned. Before a fanatic regime came to power, Germany had the greatest scientific establishment ever created. In a few short years it evaporated. The ambience for doing science is fragile. I have colleagues in Pakistan who are informed that all true science can be found only in the Quran. China has spent fortunes creating a class of scientist, but not one truly revolutionary discovery in science has come from China. Revolutionary science thrives on dissent. Without it, science becomes mundane.


    Happy New Year

    • David A. says:

      Lewis:

      Book reviews are one thing.

      Showing results that prove the consensus science is wrong is something else entirely.

      (Easier to focus on the first.)

      • Ernest B. says:

        Lewis, all new scientific discoveries disturbed the scientific community at the time because their acceptance meant overthrowing so-called settled science. Think Galileo, Einstein, et al.

        • Ernest B. says:

          Sorry Lewis, the above comment was meant for David.

        • David A says:

          Ernest B.:

          Do you realize, I hope, that it’s not enough to just REFER to past scientific revolutions. You have to actually do the hard science and produce one.

          Right?

          — David

          • Aaron S says:

            Why present hard science when you will not listen David A? It is a waste of time. There is more than enough evidence for a stronger sun that had a significant impact on the global warming last century, and i can show you again how strong the evidence for cosmic rays is getting and how this potentially reduces the role of CO2.

          • Aaron S says:

            Here are two videos. Please take an hour watch them and explain how there is any certainty that agw is more than a political perspective. The physics dont lie and atmospheric science and modeling is a field that exists bc of this catastrophic agw concern… do you really take the stance they are not as biased as anyone else? Data is data… there is huge uncertainty.

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/SIOMLOINSITUTHRU2008.JPG

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

      • Fonzarelli says:

        David, how about showing results that prove the consensus science is right?

  5. Norman says:

    David A.

    I think you are correct in your point of proving consensus science wrong concerning CAGW. When they are free to determine (by some mystical process no one can comprehend) the correct adjustments to make on raw data you really have no way to prove them wrong. If you would use the raw data it does not show near the warming they would have you believe. They cool the past and warm the present and make a much greater warming. They also interpolate Arctic data to prove it is warming at a fantastic rate even though looking at daily Arctic temps I am not given valid explanation on how they can use good science to do this. The difference in Arctic temps is huge over a few hundred miles and the cold moves around.

    Here is a look for you.
    http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/currents/temperature/nas.html

    That link is temperatures over Northern Asia. Note the variations in temp. Where do you choose to interpolate?

    Or North America
    http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/currents/temperature/nam.html

    • David A says:

      Norman wrote:
      “…When they are free to determine (by some mystical process no one can comprehend) the correct adjustments to make on raw data….”

      Norman, can you tell us all the adjustments made to the MSU data collected by satellites, to convert them into a temperature?

      Where are these written down?

      Where is the source code for the data model?

      Thanks.

    • David A says:

      Norman wrote:
      “If you would use the raw data it does not show near the warming they would have you believe.”

      Norman, why do you think the data modelers don’t use the raw temperature data from the past?

      Have you looked into this question? Have you read their papers? Have you tried to undersand it?

      Can you summarize their reasons in 100 words?

      • Aaron S says:

        I have read some of the literature and it was not until the correlation bt CO2 and the model data broke down that they started to correct and regrid to show more warming. Have u read the literature from a decade ago? Give me some citations that you like and i will provide examples. But dont hide behind a cape of science. What paper are you referencing? What you fail to see is that even with modified data to create warming the models are mostly still running to hot. The hadcrut data set dis the same thing a few years ago, but then had to adjust down with a negative trend to get back to reasonable calibration. Hense why we are using hadcrut 4.

  6. Norman says:

    David A.

    Here is the current temperature of Old Crow, Canada:
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/old-crow/y0b/weather-forecast/1881
    At the time of this post it was reading -45 F

    Then going over to Inuvik, Canada
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/inuvik/x0e/weather-forecast/54661
    The temperature at the time of this post was -6 F

    The difference is 39 F

    The distance between the two points is 172 miles.
    http://www.airportdistance.com/mileage/old-crow-airport-yoc_inuvik-mike-zubko-airport-yev

    They will use a station 1200 km away in some cases
    https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperature-data-gistemp-nasa-goddard-institute-space-studies-giss

    With the information I have just provided and you seeing they will use a station 1200 km away to use some algorithm to determine what they believe is the correct temperature over this whole area why do you trust the consensus, especially when they have emotional bias that their studies are so important that the entire future of humanity is riding on their assumptions about the future climate?

    • David A says:

      Norman, do you konw about Cowtan & Way?

      How would *YOU* treat a region with a dearth of temperature stations, such as the Arctic?

      • Norman says:

        David A,

        Thank you for the reply. I think you miss my point completely. It is not HOW you go about trying to determine temperatures of a region with very sparse coverage. It is about how easy this data would be to manipulate to make it say anything you want if you happen to have a bias (like saving the world from complete destruction). If you have a strong emotional bias and you are using some form of indirect calculated measurement of an area, why should I then trust this information? The claim is that the Arctic has warmed by over 2 C in the last couple decades and this relatively small increase (compared to the temperature gradient between tropics and poles) is causing drastic changes in the weather. More and worse droughts and more rainfall and flooding and worse heat waves and cold waves because now the jet stream is so unstable (check out Scientific American for this conclusion…recent issue). Unless the scientists can turn off the emotion their data will always be suspect.

      • tonyM says:

        Sure, you never fabricate non existent data to make up for the lack.

        At least those were the principles we were taught to observe.

      • tonyM says:

        David A,
        Apropos to your question, why not take a look at two T’s I have experienced today. I live in Perth, Australia. One Perth station hit just over 43C today max. Another in a suburb called Swanbourne peaked at just over 42 but has been 10C lower than the Perth station.

        They are about 10kms apart.!! It is 19:30 WST now and the difference is still 7C. So what is the temp for this small area????? Yet you insist on incestuous 1200km infilling as being acceptable methodology. Nonsense!
        Check for yourself; over the whole day
        http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ob
        http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9215&list=ob

  7. ren says:

    There will also attack of winter in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

  8. tonyM says:

    David A,
    Apropos to your question, why not take a look at two T’s I have experience today. I live in Perth, Australia. One Perth station hit over 43C today max. Another in a suburb called Swanbourne peaked at just over 42 but has been 10C lower than the Perth station.

    They are about 10kms apart!! It is 19:30 WST now and the difference is still 7C. So what is the temp for this small area????? Yet you insist on incestuous 1200km infilling as being acceptable methodology. Nonsense!

    Check for yourself; over the whole day
    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9225&list=ob
    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=9215&list=ob

  9. Massimo PORZIO says:

    Hi Dr.Spencer.

    I just want to highlight you that we are already living in 2015, while your forecast images footnotes still report 2014…

    My question is: what strange forecasts are those which pretend to establish the weather one year later? 😉

    I wish you and your loved ones a very happy 2015.

    Massimo

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Massimo, i don’t know about the good doctor, but it takes me a while to get the eggnog out of my system (if you get fonzie’s drift)… HNY to you, too.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Hi Fonzie,
        uhmmm… I don’t know what are you meaning with:

        “it takes me a while to get the eggnog out of my system (if you get fonzies drift)”

        Maybe I miss such kind of slang that you use in the US.

        Anyways I hope you enjoyed your new year day party.

        Massimo

  10. Actual high t5emperatures in Chicago for Wednesday, 1/7, according to National Weather Service hourly readings in reported 3-day weather histories:

    O’Hare Airport: +2 degrees F
    Midway Airport: +5 degrees F

Leave a Reply