Detroit Named #1 Safest Weather City

[Powerball]

No surprises here, for those who are familiar with Detroit's climate. We just don't get the extreme weather here most other places see (between the major blizzards in the winter and the tornadoes/large hail storms in the summer).

 

That's one thing Detroit's got going for it, if nothing else. You'll never have to worry about your car being damaged by hail or submerged in a flash flood, nor will you ever have to worry about your roof blowing down the street while you're at work.

 

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/06/02/detroit-named-no-1-safest-city-from-natural-disasters/

 

For those who don't remember, Michigan was also recently named the safest "weather" state in the country.

 

BTW, the study was between the top 23 cities in the country.

[A-L-E-K]

replace safest with lamest

[michsnowfreak]

Thats one of the things I love about living here. 4 seasons with low natural disaster risk, especially since I just dont get into severe like most weather weenies. In the top 20 note how many cities with much more boring weather than Detroit ranked lower because of likely a hurricane or flood.

[IsentropicLift]

How did San Diego not win? Or LA or Las Vegas?

[Stebo]

How did San Diego not win? Or LA or Las Vegas?

Pretty much my question too...

 

Oh and my how people forget that there have been dangerous tornadoes that have hit close to the city going back to 1953. But sure lets look at recent history and ignore the past for some reason.

[IsentropicLift]

Pretty much my question too...

Oh and my how people forget that there have been dangerous tornadoes that have hit close to the city going back to 1953. But sure lets look at recent history and ignore the past for some reason.

Agreed, and Detroit gets plenty of active weather, certainly much more than every major city in California.

[michsnowfreak]

Remember guys...the "safest weather city" was powerballs wording. The study did not say that...it said safest city from "natural disaster". For the weather-boring cities, esp those out west, you have to think of things like wildfires, forest fires, droughts, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, etc.

[michsnowfreak]

Agreed, and Detroit gets plenty of active weather, certainly much more than every major city in California.

Detroit actually gets more active weather than most cities on that list. Again, the key wording is "natural disasters" of the top 23 largest cities.

 

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/

 

Of the top 51 cities...Detroit ranks...

9th snowiest

13th windiest

9th cloudiest

5th most below zero days

8th most below freezing days

6th most snowy days

10th most rainy days

11th most severe snowstorms (note they say "severe" meaning 5"+ in a day )

[michsnowfreak]

Pretty much my question too...

Oh and my how people forget that there have been dangerous tornadoes that have hit close to the city going back to 1953. But sure lets look at recent history and ignore the past for some reason.

Recent history has been full of extremes no less

Detroit has had its...

warmest year (2012)

wettest year (2011)

snowiest year (2008)

snowiest winter (2013-2014)

Records began in 1874!

[A-L-E-K]

How did San Diego not win? Or LA or Las Vegas?

constant potential for massive life threatening long term drought

[Jonger]

Pretty much my question too...

 

Oh and my how people forget that there have been dangerous tornadoes that have hit close to the city going back to 1953. But sure lets look at recent history and ignore the past for some reason.

 

I remember mentioning how lame severe weather is in SE Michigan, vindication.

[A-L-E-K]

Detroit south into eastern KY/TN is all central wx / natural disaster wise

[Geos]

constant potential for massive life threatening long term drought

 

And flash flooding risk is greater also.

[Jonger]

I once read about how Michigan as a state filed for the least amount of disaster aid per square mile compared to any other state for a time period. This essentially touches on that, but there were exact figures and date ranges assigned to the study. Not being on the east coast and being just north of tornado ally plays a part in this. I would assume Wisconsin and Minnesota would be similar.

Just west of Minnesota starts to get into drought country, where aid is applied for and covers farmers.

[Rainman]

Because we all know how safe San Francisco (#3 on the list) is from natural disasters (earthquake, anyone?).  Since the study is based entirely on recent history, it yielded totally bogus results like San Francisco being safe from natural disasters.  Hell, Seattle is ranked #9 and they sit next to one of the most dangerous fault lines on the entire planet.  As for the Detroit area, one only needs to look to 1953 to see the potential there.  Totally useless study if you ask me.

[andyhb]

Because we all know how safe San Francisco (#3 on the list) is from natural disasters (earthquake, anyone?).  Since the study is based entirely on recent history, it yielded totally bogus results like San Francisco being safe from natural disasters.  Hell, Seattle is ranked #9 and they sit next to one of the most dangerous fault lines on the entire planet.  As for the Detroit area, one only needs to look to 1953 to see the potential there.  Totally useless study if you ask me.

 

Major earthquakes are usually far less frequent than tornadoes and other natural disasters the US faces (although MI hasn't had a violent tornado since the 1970s).

[Hoosier]

I get where Rainman is coming from.  10 years is not a very long period to assess the true risk to a particular area imo.  To andy's point, major earthquakes are far less frequent than tornadoes but they typically cause damage over a much larger area when they do occur.  From a probabilistic standpoint for two people living in San Francisco and Detroit, my guess is that your odds of experiencing a major earthquake in San Fran are considerably greater than being directly struck by a tornado in Detroit (especially a strong/violent one).  You could probably even replace Detroit with Oklahoma City and it would still be true.       

[michsnowfreak]

I get where Rainman is coming from.  10 years is not a very long period to assess the true risk to a particular area imo.  To andy's point, major earthquakes are far less frequent than tornadoes but they typically cause damage over a much larger area when they do occur.  From a probabilistic standpoint for two people living in San Francisco and Detroit, my guess is that your odds of experiencing a major earthquake in San Fran are considerably greater than being directly struck by a tornado in Detroit (especially a strong/violent one).  You could probably even replace Detroit with Oklahoma City and it would still be true.       

I didnt realize it was only 10 years lol. I have noticed, at least in my own area, that we used to get more severe thunderstorms in the 1990s, then it seems like we flipped a switch in the early 2000s...more snow, less severe.

[chances14]

then it seems like we flipped a switch in the early 2000s...more snow, less severe.

I mentioned that over on Harry's board. Wonder if there's a correlation between severe winters and less severe storms or if it's just a cyclic thing

[michsnowfreak]

I mentioned that over on Harry's board. Wonder if there's a correlation between severe winters and less severe storms or if it's just a cyclic thing

Not sure. Severe storms are obviously more isolated than a winter storm, and I was just talking about my own backyard (which ironically, was spared of the July 1997 tornado outbreak that devastated Detroit), but when I try to set knowing every single statistic aside and just go by memory as most do, its the same. I cannot tell you how many times I recall a severe storm downing huge trees, cutting out power, flooding basements, etc in the 1990s to about 2002 or so, whereas my memories of 1990s winters (until the '99 blizzard) was snow gently blanketing the ground, rarely causing much delay, and rarely getting deeper than 6" or so. Now...since 2002....winters have become noticeably more severe in all aspects, and what I would have considered deep snow in the 1990s would be run of the mill now (kind of the opposite of the old-timers fictional "when I was a kid..." stories). And on the other hand, its been years since we have had a good severe storm here. I remember chasing the Dundee tornado damage in 2010, but in my own vicinity, it has gotten to the point where a bad storm is one that comes with street flooding, some wind, and some good thunder.

[Hoosier]

Obviously there's better ways to do this since there's more to severe weather than tornadoes but just looking at seasonal snowfall at DTW along with tornadoes in Michigan and the DTX cwa since 1990 (snowfall extends back into the previous year, so 1990 would be 1989-1990 snowfall, 1991 would be 1990-1991 snowfall and so on)

 

 

MI tornadoes, DTX tornadoes, DTW snowfall

 

1990:  21, 12, 41.8"

1991:  29, 8, 31.4"

1992:  21, 4, 43.5"

1993:  11, 2, 52.2"

1994:  11, 3, 45.8"

1995:  10, 1, 33.5"

1996:  13, 7, 27.6"

1997:  18, 14, 38.4"

1998:  21, 4, 23.5"

1999:  10, 6, 49.5"

2000:  4, 1, 23.7"

2001:  35, 9, 39.0"

2002:  12, 1, 33.7"

2003:  13, 7, 60.9"

2004:  23, 16, 24.1"

2005:  5, 1, 63.8"

2006:  10, 3, 36.3"

2007:  23, 10, 30.3"

2008:  14, 1, 71.7"

2009:  3, 0, 65.7"

2010:  27, 12, 43.7"

2011:  15, 6, 69.1"

2012:  6, 4, 26.0"

2013:  11, 8, 47.7"

2014:  ??, ??, 94.9"

[Stebo]

Obviously there's better ways to do this since there's more to severe weather than tornadoes but just looking at seasonal snowfall at DTW along with tornadoes in Michigan and the DTX cwa since 1990 (snowfall extends back into the previous year, so 1990 would be 1989-1990 snowfall, 1991 would be 1990-1991 snowfall and so on)

 

 

MI tornadoes, DTX tornadoes, DTW snowfall

 

1990:  21, 12, 41.8"

1991:  29, 8, 31.4"

1992:  21, 4, 43.5"

1993:  11, 2, 52.2"

1994:  11, 3, 45.8"

1995:  10, 1, 33.5"

1996:  13, 7, 27.6"

1997:  18, 14, 38.4"

1998:  21, 4, 23.5"

1999:  10, 6, 49.5"

2000:  4, 1, 23.7"

2001:  35, 9, 39.0"

2002:  12, 1, 33.7"

2003:  13, 7, 60.9"

2004:  23, 16, 24.1"

2005:  5, 1, 63.8"

2006:  10, 3, 36.3"

2007:  23, 10, 30.3"

2008:  14, 1, 71.7"

2009:  3, 0, 65.7"

2010:  27, 12, 43.7"

2011:  15, 6, 69.1"

2012:  6, 4, 26.0"

2013:  11, 8, 47.7"

2014:  ??, ??, 94.9"

 

So below normal snow this winter, amirite?

[andyhb]

Based on that set, it's clear that high snowfall years generally aren't friendly to MI tornadoes.

 

Every year that had 50" or more at DTW had 15 or less MI tornadoes. Then again, MI has been in a relative tornado drought since the 1970s. If you go back to the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, MI got raked by several very significant events, including 6/8/53, 4/3/56, 5/12/56, 5/8/64, 4/11/65, 3/20/76, etc.

[Jonger]

Based on that set, it's clear that high snowfall years generally aren't friendly to MI tornadoes.

 

Every year that had 50" or more at DTW had 15 or less MI tornadoes. Then again, MI has been in a relative tornado drought since the 1970s. If you go back to the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, MI got raked by several very significant events, including 6/8/53, 4/3/56, 5/12/56, 5/8/64, 4/11/65, 3/20/76, etc.

 

Win-Win.

[Hoosier]

Based on that set, it's clear that high snowfall years generally aren't friendly to MI tornadoes.

 

Every year that had 50" or more at DTW had 15 or less MI tornadoes. Then again, MI has been in a relative tornado drought since the 1970s. If you go back to the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, MI got raked by several very significant events, including 6/8/53, 4/3/56, 5/12/56, 5/8/64, 4/11/65, 3/20/76, etc.

 

 

 

Here it is back to 1950.  Bit of a different story compared to 1990 onward.  FWIW, the 30 year average (1984-2013) for the state is around 16 per year and the 1950-2013 average for the state is around 15 per year.

 

MI tornadoes, DTX tornadoes, Detroit snowfall (DTW from 1966 onward)

 

1950:  0, 0, 42.8"

1951:  8, 5, 42.2"

1952:  0, 0, 58.6"

1953:  16, 9, 16.6"

1954:  12, 5, 40.0"

1955:  12, 1, 27.3"

1956:  23, 9, 45.2"

1957:  12, 6, 45.6"

1958:  7, 2, 18.0"

1959:  2, 0, 37.2"

1960:  6, 0, 47.7"

1961:  4, 0, 18.0"

1962:  5, 3, 28.1"

1963:  5, 1, 29.7"

1964:  14, 5, 32.5"

1965:  17, 6, 49.3"

1966:  11, 2, 15.4"

1967:  19, 3, 50.6"

1968:  20, 7, 30.6"

1969:  8, 1, 17.1"

1970:  3, 0, 45.1"

1971:  8, 5, 35.4"

1972:  17, 6, 29.0"

1973:  33, 21, 45.0"

1974:  39, 19, 49.2"

1975:  26, 11, 63.1"

1976:  33, 10, 55.9"

1977:  31, 10, 43.9"

1978:  19, 7, 61.7"

1979:  22, 7, 35.6"

1980:  19, 4, 26.9"

1981:  4, 0, 38.4"

1982:  20, 12, 74.0"

1983:  19, 9, 20.0"

1984:  22, 12, 51.8"

1985:  11, 4, 55.1"

1986:  27, 12, 54.2"

1987:  23, 7, 49.7"

1988:  27, 13, 45.1"

1989:  15, 1, 25.1"

[Stebo]

That period from 1973 to 1977 was pretty damn incredible for the area.

[Hoosier]

No surprises here, for those who are familiar with Detroit's climate. We just don't get the extreme weather here most other places see (between the major blizzards in the winter and the tornadoes/large hail storms in the summer).

 

That's one thing Detroit's got going for it, if nothing else. You'll never have to worry about your car being damaged by hail or submerged in a flash flood, nor will you ever have to worry about your roof blowing down the street while you're at work.

 

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/06/02/detroit-named-no-1-safest-city-from-natural-disasters/

 

For those who don't remember, Michigan was also recently named the safest "weather" state in the country.

 

BTW, the study was between the top 23 cities in the country.

 

 

Good thing

[IWXwx]

Good thing

 

lol

[Stebo]

Good thing

Solid bump, especially since both of those things happened in the metro area in the last month.