Why do people still live in New Orleans?

[Max Rockatansky]

Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).

And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.

Funny, since moving back out west from Orlando I often tell people they are lucky they don't have to deal with hurricanes.   As you said, wild fires generally affect extremely rural areas and generally don't burn the same area twice for a significant period of time.  The vast majority of Earthquakes are harmless and far from the "big one"  so many fear.  All tropical depressions, storms and hurricanes on the other hand are far more frequent.  Any of them can deadly effects (especially in coastal areas) and have potential to create substantial property damage.  I don't miss as someone who plans emergency response having to watch every single tropical wave during hurricane season.

[webny99]

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.

Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.

It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.

[bing101]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

[bing101]

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.

Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.

It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.

Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.

[webny99]

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.

Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.

It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.

Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.

Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.

[SkyPesos]

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.

Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.

It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.

Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.

Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.

Even then, I don't think the northeast get that many hurricanes in the first place, at least compared to the frequency in the southeast. I think the last hurricane to hit the northeast before Henri last week was Sandy.

[jeffandnicole]

Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).

And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.

One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape.  With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path).  With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known.  There's no time to drive elsewhere.  There's no known path where the tornado will hit.   All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.

Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.

It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.

Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.

Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.

Even then, I don't think the northeast get that many hurricanes in the first place, at least compared to the frequency in the southeast. I think the last hurricane to hit the northeast before Henri last week was Sandy.

And what hurricanes do reach New England are usually relatively weak.  New England gets more of what a significant portion of the country gets - residual effects from a hurricane, usually in the form of heavy rains.  In that respect, Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Vermont - even many portions of Canada - are potentially in the line of a former hurricane.

[NWI_Irish96]

Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).

And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.

One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape.  With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path).  With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known.  There's no time to drive elsewhere.  There's no known path where the tornado will hit.   All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.

We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.

[roadman65]

It has historical values and full of culture despite its social and weather issues.

[CoreySamson]

However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.

It seems like "tornado alley"  is moving a bit southeast lately. Like I've seen more tornado news from states like Tennessee and Alabama than tornadoes in the Great Lakes states.

I think Tornado Alley shifts places in cycles. Gauging by Wikipedia's page on deadly tornado outbreaks, during the 2010s and 2020s so far, there've been a lot of tornadoes in the southeast, but if you look at the 2000s, most of the big outbreaks happened in the Midwest. And the south is no stranger to tornadoes, as Vicksburg, Jackson MS, Natchez, Atlanta, and Birmingham have all gotten hit from notable tornadoes before the 1960s.

Even this year you can tell there are cycles. Lots of supercells this year have erupted in the Texas panhandle and Wisconsin, and those areas, even though they are in Tornado Alley, don't get three biggish outbreaks per year usually, like they have this year.

[webny99]

In hopes of steering this back to the actual topic...

Pride is a funny thing. Not everyone might want to move just because their area is declining. Sometimes, seeing others leave might only increase their determination to stay.

Generally, this applies more to rural areas, but it could probably be applied to New Orleans as well.

[hotdogPi]

Thank you for removing the posts without locking the thread.

[vdeane]

I'm not sure I'd consider most blizzards to be in line with disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.  Most of them just make it a little difficult to drive while they're around and then they're gone, the plows clear the road, and life continues as if nothing happened.  The main exception I can think of is that time 7 feet of snow was dumped south of Buffalo.

Ice storms are a bigger deal.  The 1991 Ice Storm in Rochester left people without power for two weeks, and driving was impossible in some areas for a while due to fallen tree limbs (if not full trees).  A very high percentage of trees in the area were killed or damaged in that storm.

[kenarmy]

I think the more shocking thing is people still living in Grand Isle. Or maybe that Grand Isle still exists..

A lot of oil which is drilled out from under the Gulf of Mexico is brought ashore in that area. So Grand Isle and Port Fourchon will continue to be maintained as inhabited settlements until the oil runs out or until there is no longer demand for it.

Yes, but it's still shocking considering it's been completely underwater several times and gets affected by a tropical storm or hurricane every year (atp). I'd be terrified if my only way out was a 2 lane bridge that always gets flooded.

[thspfc]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

[thspfc]

Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).

And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.

One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape.  With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path).  With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known.  There's no time to drive elsewhere.  There's no known path where the tornado will hit.   All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.

We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.

Whenever coastal people talk about tornadoes I always think back to the time in October 2017 that a tornado touched down less than 5 miles from my house, yet it was blue sky and minimal wind for me the whole time.

While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.

[GaryV]

Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).

And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.

One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape.  With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path).  With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known.  There's no time to drive elsewhere.  There's no known path where the tornado will hit.   All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.

We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.

Whenever coastal people talk about tornadoes I always think back to the time in October 2017 that a tornado touched down less than 5 miles from my house, yet it was blue sky and minimal wind for me the whole time.

While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.

Not with much accuracy.  In my area, on Saturday they were predicting thunderstorms starting about noon Sunday.  By Sunday morning, the forecast had changed to 4:00.  No storms until after 6:00. 

And I don't know how many times forecasts for thunderstorms have simply gone away.

[Roadgeekteen]

It would be a shame if such a unique city got abandoned.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Or at least within living memory.  The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake sure did a number on the city and much of the state of California.  Suffice to say modern infrastructure improvements have abated the likelihood of a similar outcome with a quake of the same size.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.

[bing101]

In hopes of steering this back to the actual topic...

Pride is a funny thing. Not everyone might want to move just because their area is declining. Sometimes, seeing others leave might only increase their determination to stay.

Generally, this applies more to rural areas, but it could probably be applied to New Orleans as well.

I might say the same thing for people who are born in California like myself. Urban areas do the same thing too.

[Duke87]

While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.

On this note...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/hurricane-ida-end-of-hurricane-preparedness/619926/

As the author points out, effectively evacuating the city of New Orleans requires an order to be given with 72 hours advance notice before everyone has to be out.

With Ida, they didn't have 72 hours. The storm formed and intensified too quickly for that.

This basic logistical problem means that proper prep for future storms requires either more transportation infrastructure so everyone can get out faster, or places for at least some of the population to safely hunker down locally.
This was supposed to be part of the impetus for I-49 south.

[michravera]

Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.

San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.

But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.

But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.

Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.

[bing101]

Why do people still live in other below sea-level places like Amsterdam?  Because it's economically viable to do so.  The importance as a trade/port facility will always incentivize residents to overcome the physiographic obstacles to live in a primo geographic location like the outlet of the largest river system in North America.

A hundred years from now, New Orleans is going to be a goddamn island, constantly adjusting itself to a rising ocean and a subsiding land, but it's going to still exist.  And that is because it will never not be important to have a population center near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

There's an argument to be made to let Morgan City become the next New Orleans since that's where the Mississippi has wanted to shift its primary outlet to the Gulf of Mexico for about a hundred years, but we can maintain New Orleans with minimal effort for at least another 2 centuries.  If the Dutch can do what they did for so long with just windmills, then surely 'mur-cah can spot NOLA another two centuries.

True too and basically any city within a hurricane zone from Houston to Boston will have to face the same thing as New Orleans is facing due to the climate area they are in.  In this case its the CFA Koppen Climate area Humid Subtropical climate is hurricane country that hits Houston to Boston.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_subtropical_climate




https://web.archive.org/web/20181224025419/https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/climate_max

[kphoger]

Maybe the simplest answer is this:  Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.