Safest cities from natural disasters

[edsg25]

definitely Chicago, depending on whether or not you consider the Cubs to be a natural disaster.

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Well lets see, the United Sates is about this size of Europe. Does Europe have earthquakes? yes. Floods? yes. Tornados? yes. Hurricanes? No because Europe is on a more northerly latitude thus colder ocean waters.

Europe has been subject to the remnants of hurricanes/ tropical storms and there are times when hurricane force winds have been recorded. Remember, last year, Hurricane Vince hit Spain just after it had been downgraded to a tropical storm.

[Erebus555]

I forgot that the US is home to the worlds most possible supervolcano - Yellowstone. Maybe it is the least safe place on earth. A geology professor I am good friends with claims that Yellowstone is the visible effects of the USA splitting in half... I definitly dont hope so but then it might jsut help the tornadoes a little.

[willo]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

Europe has been subject to the remnants of hurricanes/ tropical storms and there are times when hurricane force winds have been recorded. Remember, last year, Hurricane Vince hit Spain just after it had been downgraded to a tropical storm.

it was the first hurricane ever that touched spain

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

I forgot that the US is home to the worlds most possible supervolcano - Yellowstone. Maybe it is the least safe place on earth. A geology professor I am good friends with claims that Yellowstone is the visible effects of the USA splitting in half... I definitly dont hope so but then it might jsut help the tornadoes a little.

In you earlier post you mentioned hurricanes or remenant storms that have clipped Europe. The southeastern half of the U.S. unfortunately can and will get Cat 5 landfall hurricanes that are truly catastrophic. Storms that reach Europe cannot maintain much more than a Cat 1 because of the cool waters.


As for the supervalcano at Yellowstone, if that erupts, we won't just say goodbye to much of North America, but the volcanic ash would cover the globe ushering a new global ice age.

[Indyman]

Indianapolis has tornados...and that one fault down in Missouri or something. An earthquake from there might cause problems.

[♣628.finst]

Terrible. Yellowstone is actually quite close to the Prairies! Sadly... I hope it would not happen within my lifespan--- let the volcanic ash go to the Southwest, not here.

[chicagogeorge]

Yellowstone's caldera erupts every 600,000 years or so. It's been 630,000 years since it has last erupted.

[bob rulz]

There is a very miniscule chance of Yellowstone erupting within our lifetime. A supervolcano would probably show the signs of erupting long before it actually did, and there's no signs of any increased activity or any evidence that it could erupt soon.

Originally Posted by Erebus555

Europe has been subject to the remnants of hurricanes/ tropical storms and there are times when hurricane force winds have been recorded. Remember, last year, Hurricane Vince hit Spain just after it had been downgraded to a tropical storm.

The remnants of tropical cyclones are not actual tropical cyclones. While hurricane-force winds can hit Europe (and just about anywhere), they are not actual hurricanes and are different in every way. First, rain is a bigger problem from low-end hurricanes than wind is. Extratropical systems that hit Europe that are remnants of tropical cyclones do not produce nearly the amount of rain that fully tropical systems do, but they can produce powerful winds.

And you are incorrect; Hurricane Vince hit shortly after it had been downgraded to a tropical depression. Tropical depressions have winds below approximately 40mph, and only a small center will have those winds. That's like typical winds from a thunderstorm. In addition, Vince was the first full-fledged tropical cyclone to make landfall in Europe, and even then it was barely tropical and wasn't even tropical storm intensity.

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

In you earlier post you mentioned hurricanes or remenant storms that have clipped Europe. The southeastern half of the U.S. unfortunately can and will get Cat 5 landfall hurricanes that are truly catastrophic. Storms that reach Europe cannot maintain much more than a Cat 1 because of the cool waters.

It's very rare for them to even maintain tropical characteristics; extratropical systems, on the other hand, which is what all tropical cyclones that head up that direction turn into, can maintain intensity, but it's rarely every above a mid-level tropical storm (and as mentioned before, rain is not nearly as intense with these systems as it is with fully-tropical systems).

[Timur]

Ankara

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

There is a very miniscule chance of Yellowstone erupting within our lifetime. A supervolcano would probably show the signs of erupting long before it actually did, and there's no signs of any increased activity or any evidence that it could erupt soon.

During the month of May 2006, 130 earthquakes were located in the Yellowstone region. The largest of these shocks was a magnitude 3.8 on May 18, 2006 at 4:16 AM MDT, located about 22 miles east southeast of West Thumb, Wyoming. This earthquake was felt in Yellowstone National Park. An event of magnitude 4.3 occurred in August 2003 in the same general area.

Earthquake activity in the Yellowstone region is at background levels.

Ground Deformation Summary: Through May 2006, continuous GPS data show that most of the Yellowstone caldera continued moving upward at the same relative rates as the past year. The maximum measured ground uplift over the past 20 months is ~10 cm at both the Yellowstone Lake and White Lake GPS stations. An example can be found at: http://www.mines.utah.edu/~ggcmpsem/...Info/lkwy.html. The general uplift of the Yellowstone caldera is scientifically interesting and will continue to be monitored closely by YVO staff. An article on another recent uplift episode at Yellowstone and discussion of long-term ground deformation at Yellowstone and elsewhere can be found at: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/2006/uplift.html

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

In you earlier post you mentioned hurricanes or remenant storms that have clipped Europe. The southeastern half of the U.S. unfortunately can and will get Cat 5 landfall hurricanes that are truly catastrophic. Storms that reach Europe cannot maintain much more than a Cat 1 because of the cool waters.


As for the supervalcano at Yellowstone, if that erupts, we won't just say goodbye to much of North America, but the volcanic ash would cover the globe ushering a new global ice age.

So basically, nowhere in the world is safe.

[Þróndeimr]

Yellowstone is huge, but it can take another 100 000 years before it erupts. It was about 600 000 years between the two previous eruptions, but there has been up to several millions of years between eruptions before that, so saying an eruption happends every 600 000 years is bullshit.

But its a bigger chance of erupting now than a 100 000 year ago. The longer time goes without eruption, and with the same increasing volcanic activity, the wors and bigger disaster we will have when it erupts. 10cm uprising of the terrain is pretty much in 20 months though.

[Erebus555]

I was just wondering, if the Big One hits San Fran, could this set off earthquakes at Yellowstone thus causing some increased activity?
Also, is it true that there were plans to blow up a nuke in the San Andreas fault to set off the earthquake quicker because they aparently know it will happen before 2036...

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

I was just wondering, if the Big One hits San Fran, could this set off earthquakes at Yellowstone thus causing some increased activity?
Also, is it true that there were plans to blow up a nuke in the San Andreas fault to set off the earthquake quicker because they aparently know it will happen before 2036...

Hard to tell with Yellowstone. But if a big one hits San Fran, it will not just hit The Bay Area but probably Los Angeles as well

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Qazaq

Yellowstone is huge, but it can take another 100 000 years before it erupts. It was about 600 000 years between the two previous eruptions, but there has been up to several millions of years between eruptions before that, so saying an eruption happends every 600 000 years is bullshit.

No it's not bullshit. Maybe you should read up on it. It doesn't even seem that you know when Yellowstone began to experience volcanic activity.........


UW-Madison geologists Ilya N. Bindeman and John W. Valley

"Volcanic activity began in the Yellowstone National Park region a little before about 2 million years ago."

"Today's Yellowstone landscape represents the last in a sequence of calderas - the broad crater-like basins created when volcanoes explode and their characteristic cones collapse - that formed in regular progression over the past 2 million years. The near-clockwork timing of eruptions there - 2 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago and 600,000 years ago - suggests a pattern that may foreshadow an eruption of catastrophic proportions, said Bindeman and Valley."


http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

[hkskyline]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

I was just wondering, if the Big One hits San Fran, could this set off earthquakes at Yellowstone thus causing some increased activity?
Also, is it true that there were plans to blow up a nuke in the San Andreas fault to set off the earthquake quicker because they aparently know it will happen before 2036...

Are they on similar fault lines that straddle the same techtonic plates though? I doubt a huge earthquake will be equally devastating in scale for both LA and SF simultaneously. What might happen is that a series of large earthquakes will occur in both areas in close succession. I don't think a 9 quake in SF can destroy LA so far away.

[Þróndeimr]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

No it's not bullshit. Maybe you should read up on it. It doesn't even seem that you know when Yellowstone began to experience volcanic activity.........


UW-Madison geologists Ilya N. Bindeman and John W. Valley

"Volcanic activity began in the Yellowstone National Park region a little before about 2 million years ago."

"Today's Yellowstone landscape represents the last in a sequence of calderas - the broad crater-like basins created when volcanoes explode and their characteristic cones collapse - that formed in regular progression over the past 2 million years. The near-clockwork timing of eruptions there - 2 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago and 600,000 years ago - suggests a pattern that may foreshadow an eruption of catastrophic proportions, said Bindeman and Valley."


http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

I wrote a 10 pages long task on Yellowstone supervolcano and concerning supervolcanoes around the globe, so i am pretty sure know what im talking about really. To say eruption happends every 600 000th year is guessing, but its the closest guessing we can do on when a eruption might happend. With the last three eruptions we had a ca. 600 000 year delay between each eruption, which means it takes about 600 000 year to fill the chamber, and make it ready for another eruption. But we have no idea how the chamber beneath Yellowstone looks like. We don't know its exact volume, and how much it can store. And that chamber can easily change in 600 000 years, even though in geological history its a short period. That means the structure beneath Yellowstone is different than last time, and we need to wait another 100 000 years, perhaps 200 000 years to see a eruption.

Yeah, those 2 million years of activity is eruptions we know occoured for sure, and they are all withinn the Yellowtone National Park border, or parts of it. But they have found evidence of a serie of volcanic eruptions following the Snake River Plain as the North American plate moves east. We know of supervolcano eruptions which occoured as far back as 17 million years, and the years between each eruption is in some cases millions of years.

Yellowstone is currently the most active supervolcano, so its that one we need to fear, though we should not exaggerate but saying we're 30 000 years overtime and eruption, because we have no evidence its gonna blow sometime in out lifetime. What if a eruption like the Siberian Traps (most convincing PT extinction event proof we have today) happend again? Yellowstones 2 500km³ of erupted volume gets really small compared to 4 million km³ of erupted volume.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by hkskyline

Are they on similar fault lines that straddle the same techtonic plates though? I doubt a huge earthquake will be equally devastating in scale for both LA and SF simultaneously. What might happen is that a series of large earthquakes will occur in both areas in close succession. I don't think a 9 quake in SF can destroy LA so far away.

One thing, The San Andreas Fault stretches from the Mexican border and it passes through The Bay Area. And if a strong earthquake happens in either city, I think both will get affected.

[hkskyline]

Originally Posted by WANCH

One thing, The San Andreas Fault stretches from the Mexican border and it passes through The Bay Area. And if a strong earthquake happens in either city, I think both will get affected.

A Richter 9 quake in SF cannot sustain the strength all the way to LA, or vice versa. The only way both cities can get a huge quake is when two quakes occur simultaneously, which is quite rare. I don't think there'll be two weak points among the plates going off at the same time even if it's on the same line. Notice that didn't happen in Java, Kobe, or even the last big SF quake.