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.
Escondido(646 feet) is not an accurate comparison with Sacramento(near sea level, 30 feet) as it is much higher in elevation than Sacramento and the higher elevation areas in the Sacramento receive a lot more rain than elevations near sea level.
A better comparison with Escondido(SD Metro) would to use Auburn (Sacramento Metro).
This past rain year, Sacramento had 3 times more rain than San Diego.
Sacramento averages 20 inches per year.
San Diego averages 10 inches per year.
Escondido(646 feet) is not an accurate comparison with Sacramento(near sea level, 30 feet) as it is much higher in elevation than Sacramento and the higher elevation areas in the Sacramento receive a lot more rain than elevations near sea level.
A better comparison with Escondido(SD Metro) would to use Auburn (Sacramento Metro).
This past rain year, Sacramento had 3 times more rain than San Diego.
Sacramento averages 20 inches per year.
San Diego averages 10 inches per year.
Except you were the one who made the original comparison between Sacramento and Inland San Diego communities. All of the Inland San Diego communities are at noticeably higher elevations than sea level, so why did you even make that comparison if you don't agree it should be made? Please explain.
It should be noted, also, that San Diego's Inland communities (along urban I15) are on an inland plateau, while Auburn (which is actually higher than 1,200 feet), is in the Western foothills of a mountain range. Auburn should really be compared more to the lower foothills of Palomar or the Cuyamaca range (such as the Ramona wine region) bc both of those topographical features would create similar orographic lift. If you do that, then you'll get much more consistent ratios between reporting stations in both areas and can get a feel for rainfall distribution patterns.
What's more important, however, is where people live. The majority of Sacramentans live at elevations lower than Auburn. Auburn is just a very small City. However, a large swath of San Diego's population lives along the I-15 corridor, so it just makes sense to compare populated Metro areas to each other regardless of exact elevation.
None of this is interesting, of course, to the OP, so I apologize for digressing.
Still, I'm curious which Inland San Diego communities average hotter summer temperatures than Sacramento? I can't find a single one. Which ones were you thinking of?
One could accurately say that the larger metro area of Sacramento averages 2 times, sometimes 3 times more rain than the larger metro area of San Diego.
Separate from the climate questions, as a longtime San Diego transplant who grew up, went to college and grad school all in the Bay Area, I've been to Sacramento literally dozens of times and can give you a pretty good idea of how the cities compare culturally and aesthetically. Sacramento has a really unique Vibe within California, as it's a pretty big metro area, the fourth biggest after LA, San Diego, and the Bay Area, but the location is very flat compared to our usual hilly topography. Even driving in from the West, you get pretty close to the downtown Skyline while still being in agricultural territory. You really do get a strong sense of connection to the central Valley's massive Farmland community. Once you get into the city, The lazy Sacramento river Meandering along its Western Edge, the dense canopy of leafy trees in its historic neighborhoods, and the chill Vibe all remind me of a weird mix of Portland and Dallas, but still with a California Connection. You'll still see palm trees and orange trees growing in Sacramento, but also redwood trees, so you get a sense of many different parts of the West all coming together. And by late October and November, all those leafy trees downtown change beautiful colors like they would back east, even though they are not native trees. That's a really unique experience in California. You will definitely find Sacramento has generally less to do than San Diego, but there's still plenty to do, especially recreationally since you have access to some great reservoirs like Folsom Lake in the foothills, where you could water-ski, there is snow skiing in the Sierras, and you are even close to the Nevada High Desert on the other side of the Sierras as you get to Reno. So if you want your desert / gambling fix, albeit less glamorous than say Las Vegas, you can be there in a couple hours. Of course, you were only about 90 minutes from San Francisco, one of the greatest cities in the world, and that's a great weekend day trip destination. World famous Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley Wine regions are not terribly far either. The only downside of Sacramento's location is that it's really far to get to any good beaches on the Pacific Ocean, as you really would need to go all the way down to Santa Cruz and surrounding areas to get a real beach / Surfer Vibe like you would in San Diego. That's a several-hour drive. Otherwise, your closest ocean beaches are going to be more of the cool, foggy, rugged Northern California variety. However, Lake Tahoe has the best summer beaches in California in my opinion.
Sacramento has a pretty decent restaurant scene in downtown and Midtown, but the night life is definitely slower than San Diego, in large part because it's not a tourist or Beach City. But summer evenings in Midtown Sacramento, walking around in shorts and flip-flops with all the restaurant patios packed and people strolling throughout the leafy historic neighborhoods is pretty darn special. If you get home sick and need your San Diego fixed, I recommend either driving down to Santa Cruz, Capitola, or Aptos, or hopping on a Southwest flight to San Diego, which is pretty cheap and fast. You can also drive to LA in about 6 hours.
If you simply want to spread your wings, live somewhere different, and get a different lifestyle and experience than San Diego, without having to go too far, then I think you'll really enjoy living in Sacramento. For me, that experience was moving to Berkeley for college. I always felt that was my California version of moving back east. Of course, people from Back East said Berkeley felt nothing like being back east and that it totally felt like California to them, but to me, it was very different from the suburbs in which I grew up. So I think you'll get that experience in Sacramento. Someone from back East might think Sacramento is totally California, but to us California natives, it'll feel different. It's all relative. :-)
OP, the above post, is spot on, and would say just about everything he said, except for one thing. You do not have to go to Santa Cruz to find nice surfing beaches. The closest to Sacramento is Pacifica on the San Francisco Peninsula, about 2 hours away.
Another plus of the NorCal ocean beaches and coast nearest Sacramento is that they are not nearly as crowded as SoCal beaches. It is easy to find places with few people and you can let your dogs run free without other dogs and people. Also, it is easier to find dense forests near beaches in NorCal.
There are hilly areas in the Sacramento Metro Area, located in Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Shingle Springs, and Loomis, and within 1/2 hour you have 2,000-3,000 foot mountains.
Sacramento is more of mix of Austin and Portland. Also, Sacramento is similar to Denver and Salt Lake because of how close Sacramento is to 6,000-11,000 foot mountains.
OP, the above post, is spot on, and would say just about everything he said, except for one thing. You do not have to go to Santa Cruz to find nice surfing beaches. The closest to Sacramento is Pacifica on the San Francisco Peninsula, about 2 hours away.
Another plus of the NorCal ocean beaches and coast nearest Sacramento is that they are not nearly as crowded as SoCal beaches. It is easy to find places with few people and you can let your dogs run free without other dogs and people. Also, it is easier to find dense forests near beaches in NorCal.
There are hilly areas in the Sacramento Metro Area, located in Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Shingle Springs, and Loomis, and within 1/2 hour you have 2,000-3,000 foot mountains.
Sacramento is more of mix of Austin and Portland. Also, Sacramento is similar to Denver and Salt Lake because of how close Sacramento is to 6,000-11,000 foot mountains.
Good point about Pacifica. I know it's a huge surf area and has some very popular beaches. The main difference between Pacifica and Santa Cruz would be the geography and climate, with Pacifica having a more rugged Coastline and colder, foggier weather, whereas Santa Cruz has more of the sunshine, calmer conditions, and vegetation you'll find in San Diego. Definitely worth checking out Pacifica though, as well as Half Moon Bay. I also love Stinson Beach in Marin, which happens to be my favorite beach in the entire state. That always feels like a mix of the Hamptons and Malibu.
One could accurately say that the larger metro area of Sacramento averages 2 times, sometimes 3 times more rain than the larger metro area of San Diego.
One could, but I don't think it would be statistically supported by long-term average data. Not unless you really started stretching out to places like Grass Valley or Placerville as part of the metro area. I would hypothesize that if you look at the urban core where 80% of each Region's population lives, it may be just about, but not quite two times the rainfall, but certainly nowhere near three times. If you do start going way out into the remote areas into the Sierra Foothills, you'll probably see some pretty beefy rainfall totals, but it's still not going to be three times those of San Diego's remote Foothill or Mountain areas. Even Julian gets about 25 or 26 inches of rain + 10 inches of snow per year, Cuyamaca Lake gets more than 30 in, and the Very wettest spots in and around Palomar Mountain North of Escondido would get around 40, which is a unique microclimate, but not one for which I think you could find an equivalent 120 inch average anywhere around Sacramento. But you could probably find 80 inches somewhere in the Sierras,maybe... I just think you're stretching way too far with the suggestion that there's three times the rainfall. Twice, I think is maybe getting close. Where I live around Scripps Ranch / Poway, we get about 14 in on average, and we are in a pretty Central urbanized area. I don't think there are equivalent areas around Sacramento Metro with this population density that would get 42 in of rain on average each year. But if you have data to show otherwise, I'm totally curious.
Good point about Pacifica. I know it's a huge surf area and has some very popular beaches. The main difference between Pacifica and Santa Cruz would be the geography and climate, with Pacifica having a more rugged Coastline and colder, foggier weather, whereas Santa Cruz has more of the sunshine, calmer conditions, and vegetation you'll find in San Diego. Definitely worth checking out Pacifica though, as well as Half Moon Bay. I also love Stinson Beach in Marin, which happens to be my favorite beach in the entire state. That always feels like a mix of the Hamptons and Malibu.
I do surf, not nearly as much as I used to and I am original from San Diego. And I've surfed all 3 places. In my older age, I prefer Hawaii over any California Beach for surfing. I would say water temps, surf, and amount of fog, and rain are more similar in Pacifica and Santa Cruz than Santa Cruz and San Diego. I do know the similarities between Santa Cruz and San Diego as well, not just the surf but the "culture".
Santa Cruz - 30.5 inches/yr
Pacifica - 29.5 inches/yr
San Diego - 10 inches/yr.
I like Stinson Beach too. Pacifica and Stinson are the two closest ocean beaches to Sacraemnto, not counting SF's ocean beach.
I do agree, Santa Cruz is the most similar you will get to a SoCal type of beach town up here in NorCal. But, Santa Cruz is distinctly NorCal, Too wet and too cold to ever be considered SoCal. It's really its own thing. Not SoCal, not exactly Central Coast, and not exactly North Coast either.
One could, but I don't think it would be statistically supported by long-term average data. Not unless you really started stretching out to places like Grass Valley or Placerville as part of the metro area. I would hypothesize that if you look at the urban core where 80% of each Region's population lives, it may be just about, but not quite two times the rainfall, but certainly nowhere near three times. If you do start going way out into the remote areas into the Sierra Foothills, you'll probably see some pretty beefy rainfall totals, but it's still not going to be three times those of San Diego's remote Foothill or Mountain areas. Even Julian gets about 25 or 26 inches of rain + 10 inches of snow per year, Cuyamaca Lake gets more than 30 in, and the Very wettest spots in and around Palomar Mountain North of Escondido would get around 40, which is a unique microclimate, but not one for which I think you could find an equivalent 120 inch average anywhere around Sacramento. But you could probably find 80 inches somewhere in the Sierras,maybe... I just think you're stretching way too far with the suggestion that there's three times the rainfall. Twice, I think is maybe getting close. Where I live around Scripps Ranch / Poway, we get about 14 in on average, and we are in a pretty Central urbanized area. I don't think there are equivalent areas around Sacramento Metro with this population density that would get 42 in of rain on average each year. But if you have data to show otherwise, I'm totally curious.
Plenty of folks commute into Sacramento from Auburn, Grass Valley, Placerville, so its no stretch to include their annual rainfall into the larger Sacto Metro Area.
The Sierra Foothills are part of Sacramento's CSA, in fact, so is South & North Lake Tahoe, Truckee and parts of the High Sierra.
The foothills of the Sierra's get at least 3 times, more like 4 times the rain of Scripps Ranch/Poway.
It's not just where your home is located within your Metro; it's also about where you recreate and spend time within your Metro area. It's about where you work and live within your Metro as well.
I do surf, not nearly as much as I used to and I am original from San Diego. And I've surfed all 3 places. In my older age, I prefer Hawaii over any California Beach for surfing. I would say water temps, surf, and amount of fog, and rain are more similar in Pacifica and Santa Cruz than Santa Cruz and San Diego. I do know the similarities between Santa Cruz and San Diego as well, not just the surf but the "culture".
Santa Cruz - 30.5 inches/yr
Pacifica - 29.5 inches/yr
San Diego - 10 inches/yr.
I like Stinson Beach too. Pacifica and Stinson are the two closest ocean beaches to Sacraemnto, not counting SF's ocean beach.
I do agree, Santa Cruz is the most similar you will get to a SoCal type of beach town up here in NorCal. But, Santa Cruz is distinctly NorCal, Too wet and too cold to ever be considered SoCal. It's really its own thing. Not SoCal, not exactly Central Coast, and not exactly North Coast either.
So you actually point out something very interesting that is very different between Northern California and San Diego. In Northern California, most of the rain falls at the coast because of the coastal mountains behind the coastline, then it gets much more dry going inland. In San Diego, it's the opposite. The coastline is very flat, so the storms roll right past it until they get to the mountains that are 20 miles inland, then they dump the rain. So in San Diego, the coast is the driest, and the Inland areas are more wet. So you are absolutely correct about the coastline being two to three times as wet, but Inland areas are very similar in their the precipitation amounts. If you compare Escondido, Poway, Ramona, with places like San Jose, Concord, Livermore, Stockton, and Sacramento, the differences are very small. Perhaps that's why I don't perceive it so much difference living in land, because it seems we get plenty of rain in the winter, whereas at Lindbergh Field, it might be bone dry. I certainly won't forget the day Lindbergh Field had one inch and we had six in the same day, all within San Diego city limits. Microclimates!
Santa Cruz really reminds me a lot of Mission Beach and Pacific Beach though. It's got the big wide sandy beach with the volleyball nets and the amusement park, even the palm trees. And if you look at average high temperatures throughout the year, Santa Cruz has very similar temperatures to Santa Barbara. Six months average above 70 degrees and 6 months above 60 degrees. The coldest month still averages 60, which is noticeably milder than Sacramento for example. And it is very common to get sporadic warm spells in the winter, as you would notice by very warm record highs even in mid-winter. Whereas Sacramento would struggle to ever break 70° in the depth of winter, santacruz could easily break 80. There are definitely some similarities to SoCal in Santa Cruz that you would not find in other parts of the coast. At least if you were craving a beach day in January or February, there's many years where you could get those in Santa Cruz.
In fact, my interest was piqued, so I just checked out some of the winter temps on AccuWeather for Santa Cruz. This year, in 2017, there was only one day above 70 degrees in February, but in 2016, which was a drought year, there were 16 days in the seventies and 4 days in the 80s. That would never happen in Pacifica or Stinson Beach. So you definitely get the northernmost edge of the winter warm Spells at the Northern end of the Monterey Bay. :-)
Plenty of folks commute into Sacramento from Auburn, Grass Valley, Placerville, so its no stretch to include their annual rainfall into the larger Sacto Metro Area.
The Sierra Foothills are part of Sacramento's CSA, in fact, so is South & North Lake Tahoe, Truckee and parts of the High Sierra.
The foothills of the Sierra's get at least 3 times, more like 4 times the rain of Scripps Ranch/Poway.
It's not just where your home is located within your Metro; it's also about where you recreate and spend time within your Metro area. It's about where you work and live within your Metro as well.
Of course those areas are part of the metro area, I'm just saying that very few people live in them relative to the total population, so their rainfall totals are not very representative of the area as a whole. This is where people often complain that you cherry-pick data, because you will compare outliers in one area to Major Metro areas in another. It makes no sense to compare the semi rural foothills of the Sierras to the dense suburbia of Scripps Ranch. You could, however compare Palomar Mountain, Mount Laguna, Cuyamaca Lake, or Julian to the Sierra Foothills. It's not that your data is wrong, it's just that the particular comparisons don't make sense. All I'm saying is, if you really want to give people an accurate idea of what living is like somewhere, then don't pull data from some rural mountain town. Compare cities to cities, suburbs to suburbs, country to Country.
Hey, on a side note, you never answered my question about which inland San Diego communities average hotter summer daytime temperatures than the Sacramento Metro area? Which ones were you thinking of?
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.
