Extreme Drought or Lots of Rain? Which would you prefer? (tornado, living)
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.
After seeing all this extreme drought and fires on the news, I have to ask. It seems like people that live in these areas love it because it "never rains." These cities often tout it on their Chamber of Commerce websites as if it is a good thing. But what about the implications and hazards that go along with no precipitation? In the long run, will these areas turn into deserted wastelands?
I live in Oregon, so I guess I take greenery, plentiful water supply, and a lack of fires for granted. It also VERY rarely floods here. I don't melt in the rain either, so I suppose that helps. I know that many people get down when its cloudy out, but I just don't understand why people would want to live somewhere with NO rain . To me, that would be much more depressing than 200 days of clouds per year.
By "lots of rain", do you mean average rainfall or flood conditions? Id gladly take average rainfall over drought anyday, but I think Id rather have drought over flood conditions. Either way youre screwed, IMO.
I consider lots of rain about 40" per year with NO flooding. That is what we get here in Oregon, and floods that cause any property damage are VERY rare.
I consider lots of rain about 40" per year with NO flooding. That is what we get here in Oregon, and floods that cause any property damage are VERY rare.
well, considering we get more than that annually and I don't have to worry about flooding, it's a no brainer - bring on the rain!
As long as I lived on higher ground I'd probably prefer too much rain.
Not only is there a fire risk when it's too dry, but also if it gets very windy you get dust storms. I hate long-lasting dust storms.
However, if I had to pick either a place that rained 300 days a year, and maybe an average of 3000 hours of rain per year OR a place that might go a full year without rain, I'd still prefer the place with no rain.
When I think too much rain, I initially think of a hurricane and they only last a day or two and then it's dry again.
Where I live I feel we get a nice total amount of rainfall, but have a little too many hours of rainfall. Given the choice between the two extremes and our climate doesn't seem that bad. (except it's still too chilly )
***But given the choice between 3000 annual hours of rain OR 3000 annual hours of dust storms (does such a place exist?) I'd pick rain any day.
At least you can breathe easy in most rainstorms.
Last edited by ColdCanadian; 10-24-2007 at 10:57 AM..
Well, when we decided to retire to the SW it was because we (like many others) were tired of the cool, cloudy weather up here in Seattle. Having said that, we did not want a completely barren wasteland where we'd get fried. So, after reviewing climate of the SW we settled on an area with some rain (averages 14 inches a year (about 3 inches less that Sequim, Wa), so it's not barren - but still mostly sunny) and warm but not frying pan hot (average high for June/July August are 93/92/88, Jan average high is around 60).
Will still be living here in Seattle for a few years yet, but now we have our place picked out and an retirement property paid for.
After seeing all this extreme drought and fires on the news, I have to ask. It seems like people that live in these areas love it because it "never rains." These cities often tout it on their Chamber of Commerce websites as if it is a good thing. But what about the implications and hazards that go along with no precipitation? In the long run, will these areas turn into deserted wastelands?
I live in Oregon, so I guess I take greenery, plentiful water supply, and a lack of fires for granted. It also VERY rarely floods here. I don't melt in the rain either, so I suppose that helps. I know that many people get down when its cloudy out, but I just don't understand why people would want to live somewhere with NO rain . To me, that would be much more depressing than 200 days of clouds per year.
Florida gets both - bad rainy seasons & bad winter drought seasons( with fires) In fact Florida doesn't have the usual 4 seasons - no, they have love bug season, rainy season, hurricane season , tornado season then love bug season again, winter drought & fire season. Hmmmmmmmmm I don't think I left a season out - oh I didn't mention the wonderl lightning disasters but that's anytime it rains so I can't consider it a season (just a disaster).
Well, when we decided to retire to the SW it was because we (like many others) were tired of the cool, cloudy weather up here in Seattle. Having said that, we did not want a completely barren wasteland where we'd get fried. So, after reviewing climate of the SW we settled on an area with some rain (averages 14 inches a year (about 3 inches less that Sequim, Wa), so it's not barren - but still mostly sunny) and warm but not frying pan hot (average high for June/July August are 93/92/88, Jan average high is around 60).
Will still be living here in Seattle for a few years yet, but now we have our place picked out and an retirement property paid for.
I prefer lots of rain and snow where our reservoirs are, but not so much where we live.
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.
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.
. To me, that would be much more depressing than 200 days of clouds per year.
)
