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.
San Francisco rain= cold, overcast drizzle for days on the end amounting to a whopping 0.10 inch even though you go three days without see the sun at all. Temperature stays between 45 and 55 F during this time period.
20 inches a year all of it in winter. Even the dry summers are very foggy at the coast and you can go weeks with very little sun despite there being typically no rain fall (other than fog drip) from May to September.
Miami rain= most summer days have a fast and hard thunderstorm dropping an inch within 20 minutes at around 4PM followed by clearing skies an hour later and great beach weather before the t-storm in the early morning and a balmy rain-free late evening perfect for late nights. Even the winter dry season typically gets about an inch to two inches of rain a month (same as San Diego's wet season) and the winter rain is warm.
San Franciscans consider "warm rain" a total oxymoron as it just cannot ever rain above 60 F there.
Thunderstorms are so rare in SF that according to one poster, a garden-variety style light thunderstorm (not severe, not even any direct C to G lightning and only a trace of rain) caused mass panic and 911 calls along local residents: (see fifth post here: https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...s-miami-3.html)
However, in San Francisco no one has ever died of the weather and the brush fires do not effect the city directly;
see the second post for my argument on how "safe" SF weather is despite it being cold, gloomy, and boring on this link: https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-miami-30.html
Why do you diss SF so much, Adrianna? I agree, it's climate is terrible but there ARE plenty of worse ones out there!
So he basically doesn't understand what constitutes a drought? Got it.
You people seem to be missing his point; yes, South Florida is well behind on its rainfall for the year, but it has been receiving heavy thunderstorms for many days through this time, so the environment is going to be well watered and soaked, and the plants will be green, regardless of the deficit. So, in that sense, the drought isn't present.
You people seem to be missing his point; yes, South Florida is well behind on its rainfall for the year, but it has been receiving heavy thunderstorms for many days through this time, so the environment is going to be well watered and soaked, and the plants will be green, regardless of the deficit. So, in that sense, the drought isn't present.
In what sense? If you're way below your average rainfall and the soil moisture is drier than it should be that is a drought. Not sure what's so hard for you and Trigger-F to understand about that. Yes water is still falling from the sky, but it's not enough for now.
San Francisco rain= cold, overcast drizzle for days on the end amounting to a whopping 0.10 inch even though you go three days without see the sun at all.
That's not how winter rainfall goes in SF, it's no different than anywhere else in Northern CA.
In what sense? If you're way below your average rainfall and the soil moisture is drier than it should be that is a drought. Not sure what's so hard for you and Trigger-F to understand about that. Yes water is still falling from the sky, but it's not enough for now.
Here is what is meant:
Say a place is behind on its yearly rainfall by 15 inches; that would obviously constitute to a deficit. That is understood. However, if the same place, in a relatively brief period of time, picks up an accumulated amount of 9 inches of rain, it would make the soil so moist that water can't be held for long, and then flooding happens. While the area will still technically be under rainfall deficit, and thus drought, the environment around will not reflect that; with flooding happening, the ground would obviously have been water-logged.
Say a place is behind on its yearly rainfall by 15 inches; that would obviously constitute to a deficit. That is understood. However, if the same place, in a relatively brief period of time, picks up an accumulated amount of 9 inches of rain, it would make the soil so moist that water can't be held for long, and then flooding happens. While the area will still technically be under rainfall deficit, and thus drought, the environment around will not reflect that; with flooding happening, the ground would obviously have been water-logged.
It's not just rainfall but soil moisture as well. If the ground is "water logged" and saturated then it likely won't be designated in severe drought conditions.
It's not just rainfall but soil moisture as well. If the ground is "water logged" and saturated then it likely won't be designated in severe drought conditions.
Yet, areas of South Florida have seen many days of heavy, and I mean heavy, torrential downpours, enough to make the ground water-logged.
The point is, the only indication that South Florida is in drought is simply the rainfall deficit; look at the environment around, and you wouldn't see any drought. Look at plants, and you would see that they are all green. If the soil moisture was really low for the region, then the plant stress would clearly be seen. So, unless someone from South Florida can show that plants in the region this year have had stress, the point still stands that the drought is only present on paper only.
Yet, areas of South Florida have seen many days of heavy, and I mean heavy, torrential downpours, enough to make the ground water-logged.
The point is, the only indication that South Florida is in drought is simply the rainfall deficit; look at the environment around, and you wouldn't see any drought. Look at plants, and you would see that they are all green. If the soil moisture was really low for the region, then the plant stress would clearly be seen. So, unless someone from South Florida can show that plants in the region this year have had stress, the point still stands that the drought is only present on paper only.
Only on paper? That doesn't even make sense. You think that just because plants are still green doesn't mean there isn't a drought? What about ground water levels?
Only on paper? That doesn't even make sense. You think that just because plants are still green doesn't mean there isn't a drought? What about ground water levels?
The plants are green because the ground water level is high enough, smart one. If ground water levels were low, and the soil moisture was too low, then the plants would be stressed. And stressed plants would be the sole thing that would put the nail to the coffin in terms of South Florida being in drought.
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.
I agree, it's climate is terrible but there ARE plenty of worse ones out there!
