3 ms·

You might be surprised: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado-alley-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado-all... E

by Kalium 5y ago

You might be surprised: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado-alley-states https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/tornado-all... EF4 or EF5 tornadoes are around 2% of those in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_in_the_United_States), which means any state with more than 34 or so a year can expect to see at least one. That accounts for 14 states with a combined population of about 106 million people. That's approximately 32% of the total US population. 8%-ish of tornadoes rate EF3. At which point any state with seven or more a year should expect at least one in the EF3-5 range (yay, birthday paradox!). That's 32 states totaling 270 million people - 82% of the US.

HWR_14 5y ago
I find a flaw in your logic, but don't have a pithy name for it. Population densities and EF4/EF5 tornado probabilities are not uniformly distributed throughout a state, and probably are negatively correlated. Looking at this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_Tornado_Reports.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_T...) from the wikipedia article you linked shows this, with New Orleans, Atlanta and Miami being outside their state's main tornado zone and Houston and Chicago right at the border of high-tornados and medium-tornados.
- Kalium 5y ago
  Oh, you're absolutely right. I simplified immensely by aggregating at the level of a convenient political division that has only vague bearing on actual geography as well as assuming the distributions are uniform across the range in question. I think the overall point is sound, though. A huge chunk of the US population is in territory regularly subject to strong tornadoes. Also, I would beg to differ that this map puts Chicago at the edge of a high-tornado zone. It's solidly in one, as is Kansas City.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I agree with KC. For Chicago, it looked to me like the tornado zone had a small buffer around the lake that Chicago nestled into. But your larger point stands.

by Kalium 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

I find a flaw in your logic, but don't have a pithy name for it. Population densities and EF4/EF5 tornado probabilities are not uniformly distributed throughout a state, and probably are negatively correlated. Looking at this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_Tornado_Reports.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Average_Annual_T...) from the wikipedia article you linked shows this, with New Orleans, Atlanta and Miami being outside their state's main tornado zone and Houston and Chicago right at the border of high-tornados and medium-tornados.

Kalium 5y ago
Oh, you're absolutely right. I simplified immensely by aggregating at the level of a convenient political division that has only vague bearing on actual geography as well as assuming the distributions are uniform across the range in question. I think the overall point is sound, though. A huge chunk of the US population is in territory regularly subject to strong tornadoes. Also, I would beg to differ that this map puts Chicago at the edge of a high-tornado zone. It's solidly in one, as is Kansas City.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I agree with KC. For Chicago, it looked to me like the tornado zone had a small buffer around the lake that Chicago nestled into. But your larger point stands.