What climates have no weather disasters but are still uncomfortable/unpleasant? (tornadoes, snowfall)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Singapore is a classic example. No hurricanes due to proximity to equator, no tornadoes, and of course no blizzards. Flooding is also rare.
The only real natural disaster is haze. Forest fires don't happen directly in Singapore, but forest fires in Indonesia blow smoke over Singapore sometimes.
Yet the weather is absolutely gross year round in Singapore. 90F heat, sun, and dewpoints in the upper 70s year round.
No weather disasters: no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no blizzards, no fires.
Seattle is going to top this list for me. So is Fresno.
Please don't say Buffalo. People keep saying Buffalo has hardly any natural disasters. Yeah, like a blizzard is not a natural disaster.
Buffalo isn't unpleasant/uncomfortable; it is listed as having relatively good weather for much of the year. Winters aren't even all that cold, just snowy. A blizzard in Buffalo is not a natural disaster since they get heavy snowfall all of the time and are prepared for it. 2 feet of snow in Buffalo overnight? No big deal. Other places that don't get it? Probably a big problem.
I will nominate this place for having a very uncomfortable/unpleasant climate despite being relatively free of weather disasters:
This place will seriously mess you up when you are working in Detroit in November and you get sent down here...and find that it's in the upper 80's and it's either hot or inferno-hot year round:
The others that come to mind all are prone to catching on fire so they don't count for your purposes
To summarize, it's awful if it is: 1. Year-round hot 2. Dry 3. Overly sunny 4. Has a dry season or less than 33" of annual rainfall 5. Catches on fire 6. Doesn't snow and 7. Lacks one or more of the 4 seasons. See, I'm not picky at all, lol
The Atacama Desert in Peru. It can go years there without a single raindrop. Arica, Chile, one of the largest cities in the Atacama, has 1" of rain... every 33.4 years on average.
Phoenix, Arizona gets more rain in a year than Arica has gotten since the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, and Phoenix is still a desert climate.
The Atacama Desert may be largely free of disasters, but as far as inhabited climates go it is unrivaled in being awful.
No weather disasters: no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no blizzards, no fires.
Seattle is going to top this list for me. So is Fresno.
Please don't say Buffalo. People keep saying Buffalo has hardly any natural disasters. Yeah, like a blizzard is not a natural disaster.
Seattle on top of the list? How so?
Sure Seattle doesn't have much risk of weather-related disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) But it also doesn't have uncomfortable/unpleasant weather. Its summers are arguably the best in the entire country with sun, low humidity, and upper 70's being the norm. And winter is more mild than any of the rest of the northern half of the country.
Add to that Mt. Ranier, when she pops off again Seattle's outer reaches may be affected by mudfows or ash. But that may not happen for hundreds of years, if ever, so the actual danger is pretty low. Cascadia is a real thing that is going to change the lives of millions when it goes, and it's "overdue" in historical terms.
To the post, a location with a miserable climate but few natural disasters? I'd pick Antarctica.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.