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.
I'm talking about the state of Illinois which happens to be in Chicago and the state of NC with respect to pension debt...totally clueless and don't care about any others.
The title of the thread somehow makes believe that natural disasters aren't prevalent in the Great Lakes area which is utterly absurd. And then uses a weak premise to infer that natural disasters will be a catalyst for people to relocate to the Midwest. It's gross generalizations about regions of the country that the OP seemingly knows nothing about other than national news lusting for some juicy headlines to get eyeballs. If that's the case, you'd think they handed out bullet proof vest at Chicago city limits.
And for seem odd reason you think Global warming won't impact the Great Lakes area more than other regions of the country. Maybe it'll cause a huge wall of water to wipe out half of the cities residing on the Great Lakes or a catastrophic regional drought. Do you actually believe there is an imaginary wall of resistance around the Great Lakes in regards to natural disasters?
I mean really, take a stab at one of the poll options..."No, I would live somewhere even with the astronomical risks"? Huh? What astronomical risk is there in Raleigh, NC, Atlanta, GA or Nashville, TN versus Chicago, IL? This is pure delusion or ignorance or both.
This thread is NOT on - WHICH REGION IS BETTER EITHER. Some act like the US Midwest is NOT WORTHY OF BEING IN THE US EVEN? Oh its too cold and gets all that snow .....
You'All are acting like this Great Lakes region is ALL worn-out, ghetto's, too much old, no scenic areas, no beaches, all a liberal wasteland.... oh and IT GETS COLD AND KNOWY WINTERS ..... Forget about the Rocky Mountain states then, Canada and much of Europe.
Chicago is not a city to see as some foreign Communist wasteland and OMG too many links on NYC corruption and waste to begin to post. The WRONG THREAD for this. But I surely accept your preferring the underlined region. Just not all this DOGGING on a city and region politically and for OMG a REAL WINTER.
This city is very much part of this Nation and the Region.
I'm talking about the state of Illinois which happens to be in Chicago and the state of NC with respect to pension debt...totally clueless and don't care about any others.
The title of the thread somehow makes believe that natural disasters aren't prevalent in the Great Lakes area which is utterly absurd. And then uses a weak premise to infer that natural disasters will be a catalyst for people to relocate to the Midwest. It's gross generalizations about regions of the country that the OP seemingly knows nothing about other than national news lusting for some juicy headlines to get eyeballs. If that's the case, you'd think they handed out bullet proof vest at Chicago city limits.
And for seem odd reason you think Global warming won't impact the Great Lakes area more than other regions of the country. Maybe it'll cause a huge wall of water to wipe out half of the cities residing on the Great Lakes or a catastrophic regional drought. Do you actually believe there is an imaginary wall of resistance around the Great Lakes in regards to natural disasters?
I mean really, take a stab at one of the poll options..."No, I would live somewhere even with the astronomical risks"? Huh? What astronomical risk is there in Raleigh, NC, Atlanta, GA or Nashville, TN versus Chicago, IL? This is pure delusion or ignorance or both.
People forget that the Great Lakes region is prone to natural disasters. For example, the White Hurricane of 1913 that devastated parts of the Great Lakes in the US and Canada.
That being said, the Great Lakes are overall pretty safe. I would rather deal with snow than the constant anxiety of a direct hit by a hurricane in the Southeast.
The West Coast has been quiet lately but the San Andreas will quake violently in the foreseeable future, and the Juan de Fuca plate will slip under the North American plate. When that happens you will see utter catastrophe and many will undoubtedly move away including to the Great Lakes area. It will cause unimaginable destruction in terms of modern American history.
Midwest cities like Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, St.Louis, Kansas City Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Des Moines, all seem like beautiful and interesting cities to me. The natural disasters down here haven't made those places seem anymore desirable to me than before. I always wanted to visit those places, and if I had the money I wouldn't mind owning property in Chicago. But these disasters hasn't given me haste to flee there anymore than I already wanted too. I hope the Midwest does receive positive growth though. The Midwest cities give you a classic urban environment for a cheap price. That's just lovely, and that won't be available anymore if it received rapid growth.
Except in Texas, you can live in Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, or San Antonio and avoid those risks altogether. You know the state isn't one big Houston or Corpus Christi right?
For what ever reason people have no common sense when it comes to geography. I told one person I was lived in Texas I got a "Good thing you're not over there right now" response, and then I told them I lived in Austin, and they were still persistent that it was a good thing I wasn't over there. There were folks in Atlanta talking about how it was gonna be chaos due to Houstonians fleeing to Atlanta, ignoring the fact that there's 3 inland cities in Texas that are about the size of Atlanta.
For what ever reason people have no common sense when it comes to geography. I told one person I was lived in Texas I got a "Good thing you're not over there right now" response, and then I told them I lived in Austin, and they were still persistent that it was a good thing I wasn't over there. There were folks in Atlanta talking about how it was gonna be chaos due to Houstonians fleeing to Atlanta, ignoring the fact that there's 3 inland cities in Texas that are about the size of Atlanta.
Yeah, Atlanta didn't really feel much noticeable impact from Harvey with Houstonians coming here at all.
On the other hand, we had over 500,000 Floridians here last week!
Last week there was a magnitude 8.2 earthquake off the coast of Mexico and the earthquake has since spawned 1,850 aftershocks which prior to today the largest aftershock earthquake was a 6.1 magnitude. That changed today as a magnitude 7.1 earthquake (also an aftershock of last weeks magnitude 8.2) struck near Mexico City. Initial reports already have the death total at 110 people and by tomorrow the death toll will be confirmed to be even higher. In perspective, today's 7.1 magnitude will have more casualties than Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma combined.
You know, I never gave aftershocks much thought until just now. I was always under the impression that while still devastating that aftershocks cannot ever be catastrophic but today was a realization in that department. A magnitude 8.2 is strong enough to have an aftershock a week later that is over a magnitude 7.1 and to me that's just bewildering. Aftershocks after a magnitude 8 or higher earthquake can last up to a month to a month and a half (sometimes much longer) after the initial earthquake.
I hope for the best for Mexico as it tries to recover from this one. I hope that this is the extent of what we see from the aftershocks. Megathrusts have the ability to send aftershocks for years after one occurs (as is the case with Sumatra following 2004), but fortunately Mexico doesn't have any subduction zone fault lines, therefore it cannot have Megathrusts. This is still catastrophic and damaging for Mexico right now and I feel for those there that are affected by this, but if they had a subduction zone fault, it would have been leagues worse for them.
I have lived in the Midwest as a matter fact. But you can't have it both ways claiming climate change/global warming is intensifying natural disasters in other parts of the country but somehow it will circumvent the "safe" Great Lakes.
Who knows what effect it may have on that area - 100in blizzards and lake effect snows, cyclones developing on the Lake, droughts, etc. There is no "safe" spot on this planet.
People forget that the Great Lakes region is prone to natural disasters. For example, the White Hurricane of 1913 that devastated parts of the Great Lakes in the US and Canada.
That being said, the Great Lakes are overall pretty safe. I would rather deal with snow than the constant anxiety of a direct hit by a hurricane in the Southeast.
The West Coast has been quiet lately but the San Andreas will quake violently in the foreseeable future, and the Juan de Fuca plate will slip under the North American plate. When that happens you will see utter catastrophe and many will undoubtedly move away including to the Great Lakes area. It will cause unimaginable destruction in terms of modern American history.
The southeast is a big region with many high growth areas no where near the coast, even here in NC. How is Chicago or Cleveland any safer than Atlanta or Raleigh?...do tell. There is no constant anxiety over a hurricane especially if you're not located directly on the coast. I grew up in southeastern NC 25 minutes from the beach. Constant?....once every 10 or so years? Which is the threat of a high Cat hurricane making a direct landfall. If climate change is going cause holy hell here, it's gonna cause holy hell everywhere, no place to hide.
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.