4 May 2011
The Earth is out to get you!
Posted by Jessica Ball
Just a quick post today before I go enjoy some birthday mimosas. The New York Times has an interesting new infographic about where you should live to avoid natural disasters – namely hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Here are the maps (click to see the full size, readable version):
By MATTHEW ERICSON, JOE BURGESS and BILL MARSH/THE NEW YORK TIMES. Sources: Sperling’s Best Places; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (tornado map); University of Miami (hurricane map); U.S. Geological Survey (earthquake map)
Buffalo actually falls in an area of mild earthquake risk; we’ve had a few small earthquakes since I’ve moved here, and it’s likely that we would feel some shaking if larger earthquakes were to occur in the northeast (such as in upstate NY).
What I find curious is that many of the cities in the Northwest – particularly those along the Cascade volcanic arc and Cascadia subduction zone – are presented as being relatively safe. Granted, this infographic doesn’t take volcanoes into account, but I do wonder how the different risks are combined to determine which cities are “safe”. I wouldn’t consider living in a city along the Cascadia subduction zone, which is capable of producing some seriously large earthquakes, to be particularly safe. However, the authors of the article and the graphic don’t explain how different risks are weighted (whether by population, number of different types of natural disaster that could occur, etc.) They also mention some other natural hazards (drought, hail, floods, and wind) when evaluating the worst and best places to live, but don’t seem to have included them in their analysis to begin with.
I’m interested in finding out the methods the authors used to produce this graphic, and if there’s any information they included that’s not pictured on the NOAA/U of Miami/USGS maps that come with it. Anyone have the inside scoop?
Jessica Ball is a volcanologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, researching volcanic hydrothermal systems and stability, and doing science communication for the California Volcano Observatory. She previously worked at the Geological Society of America's Washington DC Policy Office, learning about the intersection of Earth science and legislative affairs. Her Mendenhall postdoc and PhD focused on how water affects the stability of volcanoes, and involved both field investigations and numerical modeling applications. Her blogging covers a range of topics, from her experiences in academic geosciences to science outreach and communication to her field and lab work in volcanology.
Looks to me as if the circle size gives the metro area population and the risk color is based on relatively recent events, with no weighting for large risks based on prehistory (e.g., the Cascadia subduction zone.) or for the possibility of severe damage beyond the epicenters of earthquakes. I agree that the USGS map does not agree with all those green circles along the west coast.
i’m going to hazard a guess and say they used short-term hazards but I too want to see the methodology behind this map. Otherwise it’s highly misleading.
and considering this tweet by ReadyGov that 90% of US natural “disasters” involve flooding…
https://twitter.com/#!/ReadydotGov/status/65865877379223554
[…] to Jessica Ball’s ‘Magma Cum Laude‘ blog for passing this along, via my subscription. maps showing areas of relative […]
I lived through one bad blizzard in my life, it blew the windows out of my house, drifts twenty feet deep on the roads, bone chilling cold. It was 1978 or 77, a very long time ago. I considered myself very lucky to get out alive.
You are right about the Northwest being a geologic wildcard, one only has to visit Crater Lake National Park to get an idea of how bad things can get in that area.
Could have something to do with substrate material. I can’t imagine giving a green circle to a place that has a foundation of modern fluvial sediment w/ a high water table, but I could see giving green to a place with a foundation of highly compact till with a low water table (plus all other factors being minimal as well).
The map appears to be missing wildfires and landslides, as well as the previously mentioned volcanism, rare catastrophic events, and underestimating flood risk.
I puzzled over this for a while, because it just didn’t look right somehow to have Dallas, Texas at the top of the list. I think maybe it makes more sense if they are going by the amount of insurance claims. Hail is not what you usually think of as an environmental disaster, but it does cause a lot of economic damage. I sneer at the “hurricane remnants” they mention; we do get some pretty impressive hail, though.
I question this map too. I think who ever made it is very bias towards certain areas. I grew up in NE OH and found it to be a very safe place to live.
Now I’m living in NW LA while having had lived in S LA. It boggles my mind to think that NW LA is considered more hazardous to live in than the southern part of the state. I’ve seen the devastation caused by hurricanes and by tornadoes. I feel you can’t compare a hurricane to a tornado. Hurricanes are just so much more destructive. Hurricanes wipe out large areas for miles and miles while the tornado’s around here may touch down in one or two spots for at most a couple of miles. I much rather take my chances with a tornado any day over that of a hurricane.