Do you get offended when ignorant people call all of California a desert? (Los Angeles: tornadoes, to live)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by saibot

This is a picture taken near my house during the dry season, in the foothills of Orange County, about 15 miles from the coast. It was not planted nor watered by humans; the vegetation is mostly native. The grasses have dried out but the trees and small bushes are still green. Compare to any picture of the landscape around Palm Springs or Las Vegas and you will see that while indeed semi-arid, this is not a "desert" landscape.

Nice country you are in. Similar to me. Nice mixture of oaks, a few other types of trees, chaparral, and the inevitable oat grass. And mind you I'm in the SF burbs. So much of stereotypes for both So Cal and Nor Cal.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

San Diego gets less rainfall on average per year than Tuscon and that was true BEFORE our current drought. LA gets a bit more, but not by much. Used to be I called the climate in Southern California "mediterranean" but then I realized that wasn't really true. If there wasn't any manmade planting or watering here, you'd have mostly dried chapparel along the coast, and a scattering of trees at higher elevation -- very similar to high desert places like New Mexico or the higher elevations in Arizona.

The only reason there's more greenery along the coast in Southern California than say Phoenix is because of coastal moisture/fog and many years of nonnatural watering and non-native planting. True, they have more cactus in Phoenix, but there aren't a ton of cacti in New Mexico, and it's still "desert."

Sorry, but, yeah, Southern California really is closer to "desert" than anything else.

Now, it's a little different in parts of Northern California along the coast, where there is more rainfall and thus a different ecosystem. But, go inland to say Redding, and you're back into a different native landscape that is more similar to higher desert like New Mexico or Southern Utah.

But, let's say that there is a "mediterranean" climate along the coast. There is still a heck of a lot of "desert" in California, and it doesn't take very many miles to get to it. So, I can understand how out of staters might have the impression that all of California is "desert"

(P.S. thanks for the rep from the person who told me I am wrong. )

Redding gets 40 inches of rain a year and the hills outside of town are well forested And yes you are wrong. You need to visit Redding some time.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Redding gets between 35 and 40 inches of rain a year. Hardly a desert. Incidentally, Seattle gets 37 inches.

What never seems to be taken into consideration is soil conditions. Even in areas with high rainfall, poor or hard soils cannot support forest and other types of lush vegetation. The Marin Headlands just north of SF get a good amount of rain but look barren due to the constant, rather strong breeze which has blown most of the soil away and also creates high evapotranspiration.

About 25 to 30% of CA is classified as true desert. Another almost 40% is forest. The rest is grassland, an ecosystem frequently overlooked in CA but the Central Valley is technically a prairie.

Bingo. You are totally correct about the evapo transpiration. But that is also why the vegetation in Redding looks completely different than Seattle. In Seattle, the rainfall is spread out over twice as many days or more, and Redding is the hottest place on Earth at its latitude or higher, with triple-digit averages in the summer, coupled with low humidity. And that really dries out of the vegetation during the dry season and will give some of the area a similar look to that New Mexico, which has its rainfall mostly during the hot summer months.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Sorry, but you have a lot to learn about Northern California.

SF/Oakland/Sacramento - all average around 20 inches of rain per year, that is near triple than SD.
.

I am a Bay Area transplants to San Diego, and I just wanted to clarify that San Diego actually receives just over 10 inches rain per year, so that is only double, not triple. And areas farther Inland from the coast actually receive more than that. Ramona, for example, gets more than 15 inches a year, which is more than San Jose.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that most of the larger population centers in California tend to be in areas of 20 inches per year or less. That means that all of us need to irrigate our Gardens and Lawn in order to keep them alive. Fortunately, there are those parts of Northern California that are remote, mountainous, and North enough to collect plenty of rain or snow that runs off into large reservoirs, but technically, you could say that the Northern California urban communities are also "stealing" the water from those locations hundreds of miles away. San Francisco and the peninsula, for example, could not support their populations without water from Yosemite. So what bothers me is that a lot of people in Northern California feel they have dibs on that water, just because it's technically in Northern California, even if it's still hours away. The reality is, we've built our cities in areas that don't have enough natural rainfall by a long shot to support their populations, and we have the unique ability to take advantage rainfall or snowfall areas to supplement that. There's no reason the whole state should not share that since we are all doing the same thing. It is also worth noting that San Diego in particular has a highly Diversified, SmartWater strategy that's basically left it's completely immune from the recent drought. By bringing in substantial amounts of water from the Colorado River Northern California desalination and local runoff, reservoirs work filled to the rim while the rest of the state was caught off-guard once again because of lack of foresight. What I'm saying is that much of Northern California seems to squander its water while drier parts of the state are much more proactive about conservation. So let's share the natural resources of our large State.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Good post. The problem is that Mediterranean is a hard to define climate zone because it's really a transition zone between two quite different zones and has characteristics of both. Quite likely, there is a natural ebb and flow between oceanic/marine and desert climate zones which causes dramatic shifts in the transition zone. Currently, the deserts are expanding northward but at some point later, this may reverse. This is reflected in rainfall which in California is best described as erratic and unpredictable from year to year.

Yes, that's a very good point! I would probably say that the area from Sonoma County down to perhaps Coastal Orange County is the most truly Mediterranean in terms of patterns, north of there it becomes a sort of Mediterranean / Marine hybrid, and south of there it becomes a Mediterranean / Coastal desert hybrid. That is not to say that those transitional zones don't sometimes have more features of one or the other depending on the year. But as someone who grew up in the Bay Area, I would definitely say it is solidly Mediterranean.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tstieber

I am a Bay Area transplants to San Diego, and I just wanted to clarify that San Diego actually receives just over 10 inches rain per year, so that is only double, not triple. And areas farther Inland from the coast actually receive more than that. Ramona, for example, gets more than 15 inches a year, which is more than San Jose.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that most of the larger population centers in California tend to be in areas of 20 inches per year or less. That means that all of us need to irrigate our Gardens and Lawn in order to keep them alive. Fortunately, there are those parts of Northern California that are remote, mountainous, and North enough to collect plenty of rain or snow that runs off into large reservoirs, but technically, you could say that the Northern California urban communities are also "stealing" the water from those locations hundreds of miles away. San Francisco and the peninsula, for example, could not support their populations without water from Yosemite. So what bothers me is that a lot of people in Northern California feel they have dibs on that water, just because it's technically in Northern California, even if it's still hours away. The reality is, we've built our cities in areas that don't have enough natural rainfall by a long shot to support their populations, and we have the unique ability to take advantage rainfall or snowfall areas to supplement that. There's no reason the whole state should not share that since we are all doing the same thing. It is also worth noting that San Diego in particular has a highly Diversified, SmartWater strategy that's basically left it's completely immune from the recent drought. By bringing in substantial amounts of water from the Colorado River Northern California desalination and local runoff, reservoirs work filled to the rim while the rest of the state was caught off-guard once again because of lack of foresight. What I'm saying is that much of Northern California seems to squander its water while drier parts of the state are much more proactive about conservation. So let's share the natural resources of our large State.

I'm also a Bay Area native now in San Diego and I agree.

As for the rest of your post; it doesn't matter if people in one part of the state have issues with the water being sent to other areas. The distribution of water is under federal, not state jurisdiction so they will just have to deal.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Yes, that's a very good point! I would probably say that the area from Sonoma County down to perhaps Coastal Orange County is the most truly Mediterranean in terms of patterns, north of there it becomes a sort of Mediterranean / Marine hybrid, and south of there it becomes a Mediterranean / Coastal desert hybrid. That is not to say that those transitional zones don't sometimes have more features of one or the other depending on the year. But as someone who grew up in the Bay Area, I would definitely say it is solidly Mediterranean.

Agree!

[mysticaltyger]

No. I think there are much more important things to be offended about.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

San Diego gets less rainfall on average per year than Tuscon and that was true BEFORE our current drought. LA gets a bit more, but not by much. Used to be I called the climate in Southern California "mediterranean" but then I realized that wasn't really true. If there wasn't any manmade planting or watering here, you'd have mostly dried chapparel along the coast, and a scattering of trees at higher elevation -- very similar to high desert places like New Mexico or the higher elevations in Arizona.

Actually, San Diego is considered borderline Mediterranan/Semi-arid and always has been. Los Angeles gets just enough rain to be considered Mediterranean. Typical of Mediterranean climate zones, the southern parts of these zones are drier than the northern parts.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Actually, San Diego is considered borderline Mediterranan/Semi-arid and always has been. Los Angeles gets just enough rain to be considered Mediterranean. Typical of Mediterranean climate zones, the southern parts of these zones are drier than the northern parts.

Except for those in the southern hemisphere where this is reversed