3 ms·

Neither Los Angeles nor San Francisco is in a desert. The comment you're replying to said "California", and there is not much California population in the dese

by mturmon 11y ago

Neither Los Angeles nor San Francisco is in a desert. The comment you're replying to said "California", and there is not much California population in the desert climate. For example, Palm Springs in the Sonora Desert has a population of about 50K, and Palmdale/Lancaster/Victorville in the Mojave Desert has a combined population of about 400K).

Turing_Machine 11y ago
Los Angeles gets about 13 inches of annual rainfall. San Francisco gets about 20. Chicago gets about 36. New York gets nearly 50. LA and SF may not be "deserts" in some technical sense, but it'll do for practical purposes.
- mturmon 11y ago
  LA is not a desert in the sense used by climatologists. For example: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/10/myth-of-a-desert-metropolis/ http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/10/myth-of-a-desert-metro... http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/los-angeles-is-not-a-desert-stop-calling-it-one.html http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/los-angel... LA is in the Mediterranean climate zone. If you are willing to entertain the idea that not just Los Angeles, but San Francisco is in a desert -- I have no words. Have you been there? People, typically not very well-informed about California geography and the Southwest, do sometimes lazily refer to LA as a desert. They seem to do this because they have heard other people do it. If you have lived here, you will see how evidently wrong this is. It's July and I can take my dog to a creek that has flowing water. This is not something you can do in a desert. Have you been to an actual desert, such as the Mojave, the Sonora, or the Anza-Borrego?
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    "LA is not a desert in the sense used by climatologists." As I said, "not in a technical sense", but that's irrelevant to the actual point under discussion, which is that cities have been built in areas that don't have anything like the amount of natural water resources necessary to sustain them.

by mturmon 11y ago

Turing_Machine 11y ago

Los Angeles gets about 13 inches of annual rainfall. San Francisco gets about 20. Chicago gets about 36. New York gets nearly 50. LA and SF may not be "deserts" in some technical sense, but it'll do for practical purposes.

mturmon 11y ago
LA is not a desert in the sense used by climatologists. For example: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/10/myth-of-a-desert-metropolis/ http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/10/myth-of-a-desert-metro... http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/los-angeles-is-not-a-desert-stop-calling-it-one.html http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/los-angel... LA is in the Mediterranean climate zone. If you are willing to entertain the idea that not just Los Angeles, but San Francisco is in a desert -- I have no words. Have you been there? People, typically not very well-informed about California geography and the Southwest, do sometimes lazily refer to LA as a desert. They seem to do this because they have heard other people do it. If you have lived here, you will see how evidently wrong this is. It's July and I can take my dog to a creek that has flowing water. This is not something you can do in a desert. Have you been to an actual desert, such as the Mojave, the Sonora, or the Anza-Borrego?
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "LA is not a desert in the sense used by climatologists." As I said, "not in a technical sense", but that's irrelevant to the actual point under discussion, which is that cities have been built in areas that don't have anything like the amount of natural water resources necessary to sustain them.