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

[mxcolin]

Stop this madness. For some reason you really want the rest of the world to believe that Sacramento is some rain drenched anomaly during our fake winter. It won’t rain again for another week. It will 65° and sunny tomorrow on the winter solstice. I think maybe you’re living in an alternative Sacramento that the rest of us can’t access.

[Chimérique]

Yes, we agree, Sacramento is not a rain drenched anomaly, rather

Sacramento averages 58-60 days of rainy days per year.

90-95% of our rain is in the 3 months of winter which

equals 52-57 days of rainy days in the 3 months of winter, with the occasional overlap into Fall around 3 weeks, and into Spring about 5 weeks.

This is based on 150-170 year averages, not just in one decade, nor only the last 7 winters, although the last 7 winters, averaged near normal of 18-20 inches/year, with at least 90% of it coming in the 3 months of winter despite more than a few of those years being drought years.

Sacramento on average has a "wet winter" based on the fact that we average 18-20 inches/year and at least 90% of that comes during winter; during extreme drought years, no we don't have a "wet winter".

[mxcolin]

No one in living memory has experienced 57 days of rain out of 3 months in Sacramento. Show me anywhere that says that? We barely get 15 these days. This crusade of yours just makes no sense.

The average winter day in Sacramento is mild, sunny and dry. That’s how averages work. It rains less than 1 day in 3. In fact, recently it rains 1 day in 4 if we’re lucky. Today on the WINTER SOLSTICE, December 21st, 10 days from our coldest day of the year on average, it will be sunny, dry and 65°.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by mxcolin

We’ve barely averaged 20 rainy days during winter in the last decade. You’re making up figures.

58 to 60 days a year sounds absolutely believable. Even where I live in San diego, we get about 40 to 42 days a year. Los angeles, I believe, only gets 25 days, but they still end up with 50% more accumulated rainfall than we do. Seattle gets about 166 rainy days a year. So 50 to 60 days is not very much at all. Most cities in the country get about double that

[mxcolin]

Originally Posted by tstieber

58 to 60 days a year sounds absolutely believable. Even where I live in San diego, we get about 40 to 42 days a year. Los angeles, I believe, only gets 25 days, but they still end up with 50% more accumulated rainfall than we do. Seattle gets about 166 rainy days a year. So 50 to 60 days is not very much at all. Most cities in the country get about double that

Not for any single 3 months it doesn't. That would have it raining 2 days out of every 3, that just simply does not happen in Sacramento. Over the year yes, in one 3 month period, not a chance.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by tstieber

58 to 60 days a year sounds absolutely believable. Even where I live in San diego, we get about 40 to 42 days a year. Los angeles, I believe, only gets 25 days, but they still end up with 50% more accumulated rainfall than we do. Seattle gets about 166 rainy days a year. So 50 to 60 days is not very much at all. Most cities in the country get about double that

Yes, the 58 to 60 days a year is an easy stat to find. The question is the 90% in the 3 months can be tricky because of the overlap of rainy days in the Fall and Spring, and the occasional one day in the summer. So if you figure 30% per month within those 3 winter months, but reduce it to include the spring and fall equals approx. 20% per month or 60% (instead of 90%) times the 58-60 days,

which is 35-36 days during the rainy season which mostly comes in winter, but with the overlapping days into fall and spring. So, 35-36 days over 4 months is still a "Wet Winter", certainly not dry.

using the same formula with 25% per month or 75% times the 58 to 60 days per year equals 44-45 days in a 3 to 4 month period, probably the most accurate, and certainly a "Wet Winter"

Recap: 35 to 45 days rainy days in a 3-5 month per period is easier to believe for the non-believers

A few points,

"wet winter" does not mean a cold winter, nor a bad winter, the "wet" has nothing to do with a 60-65 high temp.

Most of the major metros across the nation receive their rain fairly evenly over 12 months, winter months being their driest unlike Sacramento which receives most of its rain in the winter, and next to zero rain for 6-8 months.

Sacramento has a Classic Med climate and most Med climates receive their rain in a 3-5 month period overwhelmingly during winter.

[mxcolin]

Now you're extending "winter" which to be honest we don't really have, to 5 months? You have to give this up dude, it's not healthy. There are maybe 6 or 7 metro areas out of the top 50 that have drier winters than Sacramento. I've shown you that. Using LA and Sacramento as frames of reference for "very wet" is just nuts. Leaving aside the actual desert areas of the country and the LA basin, there are a handful of places in the very southern parts of the South and Florida with less rain in winter. Literally everywhere else (90+% of the landmass and 90+% of the population of the United States) has wetter winters by every conceivable measure.

"Most of the major metros across the nation receive their rain fairly evenly over 12 months, winter months being their driest unlike Sacramento which receives most of its rain in the winter, and next to zero rain for 6-8 months."

Yes, this is true, but even with this Sac is still drier in winter than most of the major metro areas in the winter, that's an unarguable fact. If you think it's not then please list out the metro areas that I haven't covered above. Or better yet, realize this is a crazy hill to die on. It's like me arguing that there is a 2,000ft obelisk in downtown Sacramento, and then refusing to back down that it isn't there. Nuts.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Yes, the 58 to 60 days a year is an easy stat to find. The question is the 90% in the 3 months can be tricky because of the overlap of rainy days in the Fall and Spring, and the occasional one day in the summer. So if you figure 30% per month within those 3 winter months, but reduce it to include the spring and fall equals approx. 20% per month or 60% (instead of 90%) times the 58-60 days,

which is 35-36 days during the rainy season which mostly comes in winter, but with the overlapping days into fall and spring. So, 35-36 days over 4 months is still a "Wet Winter", certainly not dry.

using the same formula with 25% per month or 75% times the 58 to 60 days per year equals 44-45 days in a 3 to 4 month period, probably the most accurate, and certainly a "Wet Winter"

Recap: 35 to 45 days rainy days in a 3-5 month per period is easier to believe for the non-believers

A few points,

"wet winter" does not mean a cold winter, nor a bad winter, the "wet" has nothing to do with a 60-65 high temp.

Most of the major metros across the nation receive their rain fairly evenly over 12 months, winter months being their driest unlike Sacramento which receives most of its rain in the winter, and next to zero rain for 6-8 months.

Sacramento has a Classic Med climate and most Med climates receive their rain in a 3-5 month period overwhelmingly during winter.

^^^
When I say overlap into fall and spring I'm not saying all 6 months of fall and spring, just a very small portion, at the most 3 weeks of fall, and 5 weeks of spring, likely less, keep in mind, still a huge huge portion of Sacramento's rain comes during actual Winter months (Dec 21-Mar 19)

A "wet winter" does not mean a "bad winter", nor a "cold winter", I've said many times before Sacramento has a mild winter, dare I say a very mild winter......but certainly not a "warm winter".

[mxcolin]

No one is saying Sacramento could be described as having a warm winter, this is from a United States context, outside of Hawaii and South Florida there is really nowhere in the US that has a "warm winter". Southern California has a lot of days in winter that have warm periods, but in general, it's not warm anything like all the time. It's cold at night almost every day during winter there. Sacramento has cold periods, mild periods, and warm periods during winter. Your perception of the rest of the country is of somewhere much drier and warmer than reality. The VAST majority of people in the US have wetter winters than Sacramento, if you think that's not true show me some evidence. The indisputable fact still remains that if someone were to randomly come to Sacramento in December/January/February, the odds are that it would be dry, sunny, and mild while they were awake. Again if you think that's not true, show your evidence. Until then you are still just defending an imaginary obelisk.

[Chimérique]

Yah, The indisputable fact still remains that if someone were to randomly go to most of the other major metros across the nation in December/January/February, the odds are that they would be dry would be about the same or better than Sacramento.