Do we underestimate and downplay how Great Sacramento weather really is? (Los Angeles: retire, shelter)
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.
Winter: B+ (I'd upgrade it to an A- if it was like Redding, which sees a couple inches of snow every year. Also, would like a bit more rain; last winter was below average precipitation, though not terribly dry.) No blizzards, significant rain=automatic B+ for me.
Spring: C+ (Severe pollen, not enough rainy days to keep the pollen at bay)
Summer: D
Upgrades that need to be done to Sac summers:
1. NO MORE 115 degree days or obnoxiously cool 75 days in Summer. (Those are extremes, true, but it goes to show how much Sac temps fluctuate). Make the temps more consistent. 85 degrees on a rainy or overcast day, 95-100 degrees on a sunny day.
2. MORE CLOUD COVER. It would be a lot more exciting watching clouds move around the sky. Also, would provide relief from intense sunshine.
3. SUMMER RAIN. You heard me. When it's 95-100 degrees outside and sunny, I want the afternoon to end in a rain shower that cools everything by 15 degrees. And it feels even cooler due to the sea breeze that blows the rain in. I like the rain warm so I can splash around in flip-flops instead of rainboots.
Also, I would like to see the foothills bursting with lush, dark green subtropical vegetation. Let's get some bayous in the Delta, too, some spanish moss on the oak trees; bald cypress swamps and alligators would be cool.
The rain would greatly improve air quality, too.
4. WARMER EARLY MORNINGS. Sacramento nights can be warm, but they usually cool off to a chilly 55-60 degrees by sunrise. I want to sit on my porch, barefoot, in shorts and a t-shirt, and still feel warm while observing the sunrise.
Saving grace of Sac summers is no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no dust storms.
By comparison, Florida and Gulf Coast summers receive an A from me (if they didn't get as many hurricanes they'd be A+ weather.) The rest of The South gets a B+, Tuscon gets a B (they got rain in the form of monsoons), Las Vegas gets a D- (far less monsoons than Tuscon), Redding a D- (even hotter than Sacramento), and Yellowstone an F (WTH? I'm camping in a tent, I wake up, and it's 35 degrees in the morning--on a good day!!!!).
Fall: C+
Would like Early Fall to be just like the A+ summer I described above, then progressively cooler.
In the US:
Places with worse weather (overall) than Sac: Pacific Northwest, the entire Midwest, the Northeast, the Mountain West, the Mojave Desert.
Places with better weather (overall) than Sac: The former Confederate states, plus the Sonoran Desert in Phoenix, Tuscon, and Coachella Valley. Also, LA and San Diego metro areas.
Satisfied, Chimerique? See, I even admitted that Sacramento has better weather than all of the US outside of The South, SoCal
and Southern Arizona!
Interesting report card. A few comments: although we don't get true dust storms, the strong north wind days in the summer in rural areas blow a lot of crap around and come close. And, although I agree with you about summer rain, I disagree that high 50's to 60 at night is bad when it comes to sleeping; I think most people would prefer not running AC like you need in the South.
Having lived in Durham for 3 years, I'd call it a tie with Sacto for the summer (some rain days and better humidity on good temp days, but some overcast, very humid, days, and some thunderstorms are too nasty re downpours. Plus, warm evenings are better if you're outside but harder for sleeping), advantage Durham for spring = similar temps but less windy, and for fall = longer period of perfect temps in the 60's and 70's; and slight advantage to Sacto for winter, no snow and more windy but not as cold and no ice/sleet/freezing rain.
Spring: C+ (Severe pollen, not enough rainy days to keep the pollen at bay)
!
See Sac's Ranking on a national scale:
Worst cities for allergies 2016, all worse than Sacramento. Sacramento was the 2nd Best
#1 Jackson, Miss - The Worst
#16 San Antonio
#23 Dallas
#46 Austin
#50 Fresno worst in the west.
#61 Albuquerque
#62 Riverside, CA
#72 Los Angeles
#73 Atlanta
#75 Phoenix
#77 Bakersfield
#78 Las Vegas
#82 Salt Lake City
#86 San Diego
#89 Seattle
#95 San Francisco
#96 Denver
#98 Portland #99 Sacramento
#100 San Jose
Nationally out of 100 cities, #1 being the worst, low and behold, Sacramento was rated way down on the list at #99 from the Asthama and Allergy foundation of America.
jest, you should know by now, we don't get 115F temp days - maybe one or two in the last 100 years or so. At one time, I also, like everyone else in California was guilty of spreading such exaggerations about Sacramento until I starting looking at the data and became a keen observer of Sacramento weather.
I grew up in SD just a few miles from the beach but I had relatives in Sacramento that we would visit in the summer. I would stay with them in Sac several weeks and I'll never forgot my first rafting trip down the American River. It was so fun and so beautiful and a different way to experience the summer versus being on the beach in SD. It was in the high 90's maybe even 100F that first rafting trip, yet it felt fine and comfortable and thats when I understood that a dry heat of 99F in Sacto felt like 80F in SD.
I remember the really cool Sacramento nights, and my uncle calling it the Delta Breeze. When I went back to SD each time and everyone talked about how 'hot" and "horrible" it must have been in Sacramento I strangely went along with their misconceptions and I exaggerated how hot it was, yet I knew better, no use trying to explain to them that I really liked it, and it was actually quite nice, cuz we all knew coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world.
Worst cities for allergies 2016, all worse than Sacramento. Sacramento was the 2nd Best
#1 Jackson, Miss - The Worst
#16 San Antonio
#23 Dallas
#46 Austin
#50 Fresno worst in the west.
#61 Albuquerque
#62 Riverside, CA
#72 Los Angeles
#73 Atlanta
#75 Phoenix
#77 Bakersfield
#78 Las Vegas
#82 Salt Lake City
#86 San Diego
#89 Seattle
#95 San Francisco
#96 Denver
#98 Portland #99 Sacramento
#100 San Jose
Nationally out of 100 cities, #1 being the worst, low and behold, Sacramento was rated way down on the list at #99 from the Asthama and Allergy foundation of America.
I don't dispute that in general, but my allergies as a child here were bad - two years of shots. Now they'e pretty good, but they were better in the South due to more rain and less wind. I didn't have much trouble as a teen in Orange County either, due to far less trees and grasses, I suppose. Now I don't get allergies here unless it's windy (like the past two days).
jest, you should know by now, we don't get 115F temp days - maybe one or two in the last 100 years or so. At one time, I also, like everyone else in California was guilty of spreading such exaggerations about Sacramento until I starting looking at the data and became a keen observer of Sacramento weather.
I grew up in SD just a few miles from the beach but I had relatives in Sacramento that we would visit in the summer. I would stay with them in Sac several weeks and I'll never forgot my first rafting trip down the American River. It was so fun and so beautiful and a different way to experience the summer versus being on the beach in SD. It was in the high 90's maybe even 100F that first rafting trip, yet it felt fine and comfortable and thats when I understood that a dry heat of 99F in Sacto felt like 80F in SD.
I remember the really cool Sacramento nights, and my uncle calling it the Delta Breeze. When I went back to SD each time and everyone talked about how 'hot" and "horrible" it must have been in Sacramento I strangely went along with their misconceptions and I exaggerated how hot it was, yet I knew better, no use trying to explain to them that I really liked it, and it was actually quite nice, cuz we all knew coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world.
For me, the dry heat is different altogether than warm and humid. I was in Walnut Creek yesterday, 87F at 930 am and 100F at 1 PM, and it really felt nothing to me like 80F in SD. The heat index between such disparate temps, 20 degrees apart, even with dry vs humid conditions, would not really converge. 100 would have to feel like 90, and 80 would have to feel like 90. It's not *that* humid in San Diego on a regular basis to push heat indices much higher than the actual temperature. (Actually, it was overcast and in the 60s there yesterday, but that's besides the point...) ;-) Anyway, 100F in the dry heat does, IMO, feel really, really hot but comfortable, whereas 80F and humid doesn't feel hot at all, but it feels sticky. You *can* feel the difference in temperature even if the humidity is different, and for me, I would simply prefer 100F and dry to 80F and humid.
Luckily, you may recall that we moved into a more inland location in San Diego, which keeps us in a sweet spot of having far less humidity and overcast than the coast, without the higher temps farther inland like they get in Temecula or Alpine. That does mean we "suffer" from cooler nights because with lower dewpoints, we cool off into the upper 50s/low 60s most night, but it makes for great sleeping weather. I'll take lower humidity ANYTIME.
Right now in Redding it's 102 degrees, with a 9-mile per hour wind, a bone-dry 51 degree dew point...and it still feels like 110.
102 degrees with 51 degree dew point comes out to 99 degrees, according to the heat index. Plus, there's a robust 9 mile per hour wind. Why does it feel like 110, then?
Because that's how intense inland NorCal sun is.
At the same time, New Orleans has 95 degrees with a 76 degree dew point, which comes out to 109 degrees according to the heat index. But the feels like temperature is only 101--significantly cooler than Redding. The wind is 8 miles per hour (about the same as Redding) BUT the difference is it's partly cloudy, so the sunlight is less intense.
Moral of the story: DON'T just go off heat indexes; these account for humidity BUT NOT sunlight intensity or wind. Go to Wunderground and ACTUALLY see the "Feels Like" Temperature, which takes into account the sunlight intensity and wind, both of which matter just as much if not more than humidity when it comes to heat.
P.S. The low in Redding will be 68 degrees. The low in New Orleans will be 79 degrees. New Orleans is 6 degrees cooler than Redding during the afternoon and at night will still be a full 11 degrees warmer. That's the wonder of humidity--warm nights without scorching hot days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstieber
That does mean we "suffer" from cooler nights because with lower dewpoints, we cool off into the upper 50s/low 60s most night, but it makes for great sleeping weather.
I have slept in New Orleans in July (on typically warm, humid nights) without AC, and it was actually very comfortable. AC is for the weak!
I have slept in New Orleans in July (on typically warm, humid nights) without AC, and it was actually very comfortable. AC is for the weak!
I've slept in New Orleans in the summer, too, and those HOT HUMID nights were BRUTAL AND THE A/C NEEDED TO BE ON ALL NIGHT LONG, otherwise you would Die.
Moral of the story: DON'T just go off heat indexes; these account for humidity BUT NOT sunlight intensity or wind. Go to Wunderground and ACTUALLY see the "Feels Like" Temperature, which takes into account the sunlight intensity and wind, both of which matter just as much if not more than humidity when it comes to heat.
Meteorologists measure the high temps in the shade not in direct sunshine. They do that because if you measured in the direct sun it gives you an inaccurate reading; it gives you the "magnifying glass" reading. For example, if you measured the temp in full sun on a very cold day in the direct sunlight you probably would end up with a reading of 10 degrees warmer than the actual overall temp because of the magnifying glass effect. Your reading in the direct sun might be 40F, but if you measured just a few feet away in the shade, the reading would be 25-30F. The reading in the shade is more accurate of what the overall feel and surrounding area is, not where the sun is focused. The same applies to hot days, if you measure in the direct sunlight your reading will be at least 10 degrees hotter or more than the same reading a few feet away in the shade.
If trees, shelters, clouds, buildings, and mountains(that give you shade) didn't exist and you truly had to be in the direct sun 24/7 then perhaps it would be ok to measure in the direct sunlight, but that is not reality because in the outback and rural areas, where there are no shelters to provide shade, you still have trees, big rocks, clouds, and mountains that provide shade. You don't stand in direct sunlight for any length of time when its hot you move to the shade, or shelter.
Wind, rarely, makes the overall "feels like temp" hotter, rather the wind makes it feel colder as in the Wind Chill. However, wind movement can help to moderate colder temps from getting colder, but it doesn't make the temp warmer. But, in very rare situations, like in a forest fire, the wind combined with the fire itself can make the standing temp hotter, but that is very rare and only affects that immediate area where the fire is located.
For me, the dry heat is different altogether than warm and humid. I was in Walnut Creek yesterday, 87F at 930 am and 100F at 1 PM, and it really felt nothing to me like 80F in SD. The heat index between such disparate temps, 20 degrees apart, even with dry vs humid conditions, would not really converge. 100 would have to feel like 90, and 80 would have to feel like 90. It's not *that* humid in San Diego on a regular basis to push heat indices much higher than the actual temperature. (Actually, it was overcast and in the 60s there yesterday, but that's besides the point...) ;-) Anyway, 100F in the dry heat does, IMO, feel really, really hot but comfortable, whereas 80F and humid doesn't feel hot at all, but it feels sticky. You *can* feel the difference in temperature even if the humidity is different, and for me, I would simply prefer 100F and dry to 80F and humid.
Luckily, you may recall that we moved into a more inland location in San Diego, which keeps us in a sweet spot of having far less humidity and overcast than the coast, without the higher temps farther inland like they get in Temecula or Alpine. That does mean we "suffer" from cooler nights because with lower dewpoints, we cool off into the upper 50s/low 60s most night, but it makes for great sleeping weather. I'll take lower humidity ANYTIME.
Yeah, 99F with 10% humidity, I think has a feels like temp of 95F (without looking up the humidity/dew point chart/heat index chart), and 80F with 70% humidity is something like 90F, 60% humidity something like 85F. I was using a very loose example in my earlier comparison.
Overall, SD is more humid than Sac in the summer simply because it sits it on the ocean and SD Bay. In the summer, Sacramento gets its humidity from 80 miles away and when it does its in the 60's and 50's.
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.
