Do we underestimate and downplay how Great Sacramento weather really is? (Los Angeles: fish, downtowns)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Hey Chim, I actually don't disagree with you regarding geographical proximity. Of course people in the Foothills commute to Sacramento, You can't just lump them all together. So you should think of the Foothill communities as having a separate microclimate from the urban Metro, just like the Santa Cruz mountains have a different microclimate than Silicon Valley. That's all I'm saying. But of course they are connected.

Well hello TS, I did those combined averages because it makes sense in terms of where we live, work, play, exercise, and commute. The census bureau created the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) to show how and how much neighboring cities and towns are connected. In many parts of California including the Sacramento Region, theses CSA’s cross over various micro-climates, so it makes sense to combine the averages. Although not a perfect measurement, combining these averages of cities within a CSA makes it easy to compare one CSA with another.

Yes, I agree including the highest of the highs and lowest of the lows can give you a distorted number that doesn’t represent the majority, so one solution is to throw out the smallest and highest numbers. But, even that is not completely accurate because if you throw out places within the CSA that have the lowest or highest precp totals than those folks are not being fully recognized especially if they do not cross into other microclimates within the CSA.

I work with a woman in Sacramento who lives in Polluck Pines(sierra foothills), she commutes everyday to downtown Sac and back to the Sierra Foothills, we walk together at lunch outdoors in Sacramento. At least once or twice a month she comes down to Sac to care for her elderly mother and thats when I usually take her out to dinner somewhere in midtown Sac. Most weekends she helps run the family business, an apple goods store where they sell all kinds of apple products (pies, etc.) She loves the outdoors and spend alot of time both in Sacramento and the Sierra foothills.

Where she lives it is heavily forested wth pines and of course the apple trees. Polluck Pines receives 39 inches of rain annually, Sac get 20 inches of rain She crosses climates/microclimate daily from the Sierras to the Sacramento Valley daily, weekly and monthly. Today she didn’t come to work because she was snowed in. My friend and co-worker experiences the climates, weather and precip levels of both Sac and Polluck Pines on a daily bases. This is why it makes sense to combine the precip levels of both Polluck Pines and Sacramento.

Sacramento 36F
Pollock Pines 25F

[Chimérique]

TS, you brought up Mt. Palomar before and thats why I brought it up. Southern Californians often talk about how this SoCal mountain or that Socal mountain gets snow but they rarely talk about how much snow and how long it lasts, and when they do talk about how much snow or rain it gets they talk about the actual top or peak of the mountain. In NorCal we rarely talk about how much the "top of the mountain" gets.

For example, you say Mt. Palomar averages xx inches of rain/snow. We say South Lake Tahoe, the town, gets xx amount of snow/rain, not the top of the mountains surrounding Tahoe. For a real comparison with Mt. Palomar I should be reporting on the tops of Tahoe Peaks.

San Diego 52F
Palomar Mountain 24F
Snow Depth to date = Base 0.6 inches (less than 1 inch)

Sacramento 36F
KT22 Mountain Squaw Valley 5F
Snow Depth to date = Base 164 inches (Season to Date 338 inches)

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Wow, what an overstatement and an exaggeration, that really hurts because its not true and you know it. I never call people names or belittle them, especially when it is false.

I report actual facts, my brain is intact, the data is all over the internet, if you choose to ignore it, and cherry pick by using Elliott, wherever that is, fine, LOL.

Elliott, really, now thats a disconnect. But if it is in Sacramento County and its part of the Sacto Metro yes you can count it.

My data comes mostly from Weather.com and NOAA, or I cross fact check with different sources from the internet.

Stockton is not part of the Sacramento Metro; it is part of the Bay Area, and the reason the Census Bureau deems it part of the Bay Area is because over 30% of Stocktonions commute to the Bay Area for work, more than to Sacramento.

First thing, I didn't say your brain was not intact. I said you live inside your head and are detached from reality when it comes to the weather. You posted some data that is incorrect. I mentioned several of them. Weather.com is a media company that has turned weather into entertainment. I don't consider them a reliable source of data. Here is the official data from the NWS for Stockton: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8558

My mention of Clarksburg and Elliot as close references has to do with geographic proximity, which matters much more when it comes to the weather than the CSA they are located in because metro areas have nothing to do with the weather and I just can't comprehend why you think metro area matters. What really matters is what the climate is like at any given location. In California, it can change dramatically in a matter of miles.

[mixxalot]

weather is way nicer in so cal

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

TS, you brought up Mt. Palomar before and thats why I brought it up. Southern Californians often talk about how this SoCal mountain or that Socal mountain gets snow but they rarely talk about how much snow and how long it lasts, and when they do talk about how much snow or rain it gets they talk about the actual top or peak of the mountain. In NorCal we rarely talk about how much the "top of the mountain" gets.

For example, you say Mt. Palomar averages xx inches of rain/snow. We say South Lake Tahoe, the town, gets xx amount of snow/rain, not the top of the mountains surrounding Tahoe. For a real comparison with Mt. Palomar I should be reporting on the tops of Tahoe Peaks.

San Diego 52F
Palomar Mountain 24F
Snow Depth to date = Base 0.6 inches (less than 1 inch)

Sacramento 36F
KT22 Mountain Squaw Valley 5F
Snow Depth to date = Base 164 inches (Season to Date 338 inches)

Chim, I understand your reasoning, but it's not a "statistically" sound idea. Averages of any sort in regions of large disparities (vegetation, elevation, climate, population density, etc) won't be statistically significant by the definition of statiticians. Your idea of excluding the outliers is much more sound. You could also weight the rainfall average of each city based on its population to see what the average rainfall per person in the metro area is. That way, small towns like Pollock Pines or Julian are given less weight bc their climates don't affect the majority of people. But it's just easier to break down metro vs foothills vs mountains, just like the weather forecasts do (for a reason). Three areas, three climates. I wouldn't actually lump our local mountains into the overall SD climate either. It's a nice nature area with its own identity and atmosphere.

Regarding Palomar Mountain, it's more like taking Mt Diablo into the equation for the Bay Area. It's not about mountaintops vs mountain plateaus, it's just about being in the mountains you got, and those local mountaintops are all we got in coastal areas. Places like idyllwild may be more similar to Tahoe in geography, a tad lower but nonetheless at 5500f elevation in a valley below higher peaks of 10,000+ ft. Palomar Mountain is only 5500 feet, which is still below South Lake Tahoe. And being fairly coastal, snowfall is going to be light, averaging 3 feet total per year. That adds about 3 to 5 inches of additional water to their annual precip. SLT snow is so significant that I think that factored into the 59" annual precip average, since most precip is snow, and Little falls in summer.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

First thing, I didn't say your brain was not intact. I said you live inside your head and are detached from reality when it comes to the weather. You posted some data that is incorrect. I mentioned several of them. Weather.com is a media company that has turned weather into entertainment. I don't consider them a reliable source of data. Here is the official data from the NWS for Stockton: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8558

My mention of Clarksburg and Elliot as close references has to do with geographic proximity, which matters much more when it comes to the weather than the CSA they are located in because metro areas have nothing to do with the weather and I just can't comprehend why you think metro area matters. What really matters is what the climate is like at any given location. In California, it can change dramatically in a matter of miles.

I think this is a very fair post. Chim sometimes is accurate about things but then sometimes uses slivers of data to extrapolate broader points, which you can't do. Chim, take their post to heart, but keep up the great discussion!

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by mixxalot

weather is way nicer in so cal

Sacramento is rough! For a little perspective:

Average annual high temp:
Sacramento. 74.4
Los Angeles. 75.2
San Diego. 69.7

Percent possible sunshine:
Sacramento. 81
Los Angeles 73
San Diego. 69

Average annual rainfall:
Sacramento 20.06
Los Angeles. 14.93
San Diego. 10.34

Annual sunshine hours:
Sacramento 3608
Los Angeles. 3254
San Diego. 3055


Today is finally sunny in SD, although inland areas were in the 30s again this morning. High will be 54. Looking at a seven day stretch of rain coming up. This winter simply sucks in SoCal, and everyone's talking about it too. So please stop telling us it's so great down here when I'm waking up to a 61f house every morning. It sucks! Sweaters and jackets every freaking day. Some winters are nice, but this one sucks. I won't complain compared to most of the country, but I'm also realistic.

(Side note: I actually remember one year, maybe fifteen years ago, where it got to 90f in San Diego and 100f in Escondido - in January! And about seven years ago, I remember it getting to 85f in Santa Rosa and Napa in January. California can be warm in winter, but it's so freaking unpredictable is the problem).

[mixxalot]

not in winter I take warmer lows in SD than freezing my a$$ off here

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by mixxalot

not in winter I take warmer lows in SD than freezing my a$$ off here

I agree that Sacramento gets plenty cold enough in winter for us Californians, but I just find it ironic that you keep writing about the "warmer winter lows"" in San Diego while much of our county was under a freeze warning last night, and we had widespread low 30s this morning. Even places close to the ocean, like Clairemont Mesa and Carmel Valley, were around 37. Do a few degrees really make that much difference to you?? I mean, I'm walking my dog at 7 in the morning, bundled up in a scarf, gloves, sweater, and jacket, watching my breath, and you're telling us how warm it is down here. It's kind of bizarre.

[mixxalot]

It is WAY colder in sac than san diego

San Diego:

60°49°
60°46°
59°45°
62°50°

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/92110:4:US

Sacramento

50°38°
50°34°
52°40°
52°41°
50°36°

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/95818:4:US

Sorry but 10-15 degrees colder temps to me is noticed and uncomfortable. Thought I would share some data points so we can put this fact to rest.