Most imminent natural disaster in your region

[Sol]

I'm fortunate enough to live in a place with a relatively moderate risk from severe weather, except nasty summer heat. Hurricanes are a very small threat--tornadoes are probably the worst issue here.

[Illiniwek]

Tornados are the one thing that really threatens my area. I guess flooding could too, but tornados are the one thing that spooks me.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

For Europe, the correct answer would be Ireland.

Counterpoint: The existence of England

[Senator Incitatus]

Blizzard, but my summer home is a fortified lair inside of a volcano.

[Dr. Arch]

Hurricanes, absolutely

[ProudModerate2]

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Ted Cruz

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's probably an earthquake in Israel. We sit on a pretty problematic area and there's not been an earthquake in a long while, experts keep warning that it could happen anytime. And many of our buildings are NOT prepared.

[Biden his time]

While we're at it: Which is the safest U.S. state to live in in terms of natural disasters?
For Europe, the correct answer would be Ireland.

Parts of the interior southeast such as non- coastal Georgia

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Flash floods caused by heavy storms, minor tornadoes and occasionally river floods

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Probably wildfire, but I shouldn’t necessarily discount flooding from a dam bursting. I don’t think my place is directly in the floodplain though.

[Schiff for Senate]

Wildfires come first; earthquakes are the runner up.

[Frodo]

Blizzards (with the flooding aftermath if the snow melts quickly) and derechos are the main concerns here in the DC region.  While we do get affected by hurricanes, by the time they make it up here, we are usually dealing with their remnants.  

[MarkD]

Mississippi River flooding. I live about 3 miles from the Jefferson Barracks Bridge, which carries I-255 over the Mississippi River, and the land between there and the bluff that my apartment sits on is completely flat.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

For my region - the country of belgium - in order of likelihood


1. 🌊 river/sea flooding/tsunami/deluge
Happened last year, can also happen in my specific region in particular in the form of river/sea floodings and heavy rainfall events. One of the notable events that mainly occured in the Netherlands is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953.        

2. 🌀 cyclone/tornado/hurricane/typhoon
Mostly in the form of wind/storm damage. Hurricanes can also happen but in most of the cases, if not all, the storm would already be post-tropical by that stage. Tornadoes can happen here as well, and in fact, they occur here quite frequently compared to other regions in Europe, albeit not at the severity seen in the USA, but Belgium is located within European Tornado Alley. They are rarely damaging, but they can occassionally as seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornadoes_of_1967#June_24%E2%80%9325_(Europe) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2008_European_tornado_outbreak

3. 🪨 earthquake/temblor
Underrated possibility for Belgium, but only happens quite rarely, tho, a damaging one can occur about a few times every century. One of the largest earthquakes in West-European history happened in Belgium. There are some active fault lines here, but the risk is higher in Southern Europe. Within West-Central-North Europe, Belgium definitely has a higher chance of earthquakes, like for example seen on https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardbeving_Verviers_1692   

4. 🌨️ blizzard/snowdrift
It can still happen even with climate change, but it doesn't happen often. About as rarely as the earthquake event, esp. with climate change. But it still happens as seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2013_Western_Europe_winter_storm

It's about tied with the earthquake option, maybe it can happen slightly more frequently (esp. in the colder areas), but really isn't as bad as an earthquake happening and is unlikely to lead to loss of life, mostly only leading to practical difficulties. At least one that is worse than that i've never experienced in my life.

5.🔥 forest fire/bushfire/wildfire
Chances of it occuring are rising, in my region in specific the chances are almost zero. But there are other areas inside Belgium where it can occur (bushfires) and where it can occur more frequently due to climate change.           

6. 🏔️ avalanche/landslide
I suppose this can only happen in the Ardennes where I don't live.       

7.🌋 volcanic eruption
There are no active volcanoes in Belgium. The closest volcanic area is in the Eifel Area. The Eifel Hotspot is moving towards us - Belgium - and in a few million years might enter Belgian territory, or should I say Belgium will than move over the hotspot as the area on the geological plate where Belgium is located is heading towards the hotspot, and the distance is about a few hundreds of miles  located.

A volcanic eruption there can possibly affect us but the chances are very rare for it to occur right now, and there is evidence that Eifel volcanic activity is strongly linked to glacier melting after an ice age occured (due to rebounding of isostacy and removal of pressure of the glacier), which as of now is not the case. Germany is not covered by a glacier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See       

[Cokeland Saxton]

Tornado (midwest). Not in a particularly big tornado region though.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Okay, no one from Wyoming, Washington, Iceland or Naples has cast their vote yet... 😅

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Michigan: Maybe blizzard? The flood one specifies "sea", so that couldn't count.
Armenia: Earthquake.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Okay, no one from Wyoming, Washington, Iceland or Naples has cast their vote yet... 😅

To be honest, someone from Wyoming would be wrong to vote for "volcano".  They would have to vote for blizzard / snowdrift, not volcano, simply because of the frequency of the former.

Even the risk of a wildfire i would expect to be higher there.

Never has an individual of Wyoming had to experience a volcanic eruption before.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

To be honest, someone from Wyoming would be wrong to vote for "volcano".  They would have to vote for blizzard / snowdrift, not volcano, simply because of the frequency of the former.

Even the risk of a wildfire i would expect to be higher there.

In recent years, the danger of wildfires has become more and more imminent, I agree. Nevertheless, I would dread living above an unpredictable supervolcano.

Never has an individual of Wyoming had to experience a volcanic eruption before.

But the Washingtonians have.

unriconically great thread... honestly can't make up my mind

Aren't avalanches a constant danger in some parts of Colorado?

Michigan: Maybe blizzard? The flood one specifies "sea", so that couldn't count.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Never has an individual of Wyoming had to experience a volcanic eruption before.

But the Washingtonians have.

I know about St. Helens, i wasn't talking about Washington, but honestly for people in Washington, earthquakes likely would be n°1 threat since they're more common than damaging volcanic eruptions, unless you live near one.

Obviously the chances of Rainier erupting are way higher than Yellowstone erupting. But I think the earthquake threat is higher since it can be far more damaging and a megathrust earthquake (M8.5+)  is almost guaranteed to happen every 500 years. On top of that, the tsunami threat is also a real risk for people in the state of Washington, even earthquakes happening elsewhere (like Alaska) can still cause a tsunami that devastate Washington.

Damaging windstorms and floods can also happen, even wildfires with climate change, like we've seen recently in British Colombia too.

I suppose if you live near one of the active volcanoes in the state of Washington deeper inland, it could be the n°1 threat perhaps, but i'm not sure if it would.

Many areas with high volcanic activity are often at risk for other natural disasters, like Indonesia (floods & earthquakes). Philippines typhoons too for example. You really have to live near one to justify n°1 spot for you personally.

Even Italy, not sure. Probably not, unless you indeed live in Naples? In Iceland, volcanic eruptions aren't always that damaging, and they also have wind storms and blizzards. In Japan, the risk of other natural disasters is higher and they're also more likely to cause casualties.

Really, volcanic disasters usually can be predicted well in advance (usually). It are often the minor eruptions that can be more dangerous since they're so small that they can be unexpected. And of course, even if still one happens, the material damage can be high.

La Palma might be an example of where the volcanic threat should be n°1. Ironically some parts in Africa too, since they're far away from actual plate boundaries, usually quite a lot inland where wind damage often isn't a huge threat either. Floods and wildfires can happen in vast areas of Africa. But for example in parts of Kenya and D.R. Congo, the volcanic threat could also be 1. For parts of Ethiopia and Eritrea one could say the same, although that area has erratic rainfall so the flood threat might still be 1.

[TDAS04]

Blizzard or tornado.  There was a tornado less than a mile from my house in 2019.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I think for most people living on Earth, flood threat should be n°1 threat out of these options. America is unique in that many people live on the West Coast where there are other threats, and where the south and east coast can be battered with hurricanes (where flood damage is a side effect), or tornadoes deeper inland. The tornado threat is pretty unique to the USA, at least the extent and severity of it. They can happen elsewhere but there's no other area like tornado alley elsewhere on the globe.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Where volcano threat would be highest is probably mostly islands not close to (active) plate boundaries, usually on top of a hotspot and where the hurricane / windstorm / blizzard threat isn't too huge either so which requires not to be completely up north or south, and secondly to be outside likely hurricane paths.

Examples are Canary Islands, Hawaii & possibly Azores (altho hurricanes can hit Azores too). Maybe one can add Iceland too that.

Usually the type of volcanic eruptions here isn't too explosive which means that most of the damage is material (and also practical difficulties), but the same can be said about blizzards and wind storms in Iceland. And Iceland is unique that explosivity can still be present. Also volcanoes don't have to be explosive to be damaging, but usually one can be predicted well in advance, esp. for hotspot volcanoes.

Volcanoes that are quite a distance away from plate boundaries are usually hotspot related volcanoes. The more explosive volcanoes are usually near plate boundaries, but usually they're far more predictable than damaging earthquakes which cannot be predicted unfortunately. Just perhaps a time frame and likelihood percentages, but no good predictions. It just happens.

If Rainier would erupt in a huge way, normally government would have plenty of time to evacuate the people who need to be evacuated. In most cases, casualties would be caused by negligence or failure of government services / evacuation plans. There are exceptions of course, but "big explosive eruptions" can almost always be predicted, as long the place is monitored. The only thing hard to predict is eruption of gas & water (hydrothermal eruptions), but these are often very localized. Actual magma movement would be detected if one has the equipment.

The biggest risk of Yellowstone for example are contrary to one what expect exactly hydrothermal eruptions, since the system has a vast hydrothermal network, and plenty of those happened in the last 10.000 years. Geysers are usually "controlled eruptions", but it's good they are there because it exactly allows the volcano to vent.

If such an eruption would occur, tourists would likely be most at danger, since few people live in the area. And the problem would be higher if geyser activity would change, be more erratic, decrease or disappear which would imply changes to the network, different activity) or it being blocked by stone (or glaciers for example).

The biggest short- and mid term risk is that geyser activity. A supervolcano eruption, really, we would know well in advance it would occur because you would not be able to ignore the facts that something is off. It happens rarely for a reason, it's extremely unlikely to occur soon, almost zero, not in our lifetimes. Although we have no idea how such an eruption would look like, since we've never experienced one, but the build-up to one is centuries and millennia.

Another way of triggering a supervolcano eruption is that a moderate/large sized eruption drains the magma chamber, and that so much would be emptied that it simply collapses and what is drained would be filled with falling rocks in the chamber. The latter is usually how the biggest volcanic explosions in the last thousands of years occured (the vei 6 or vei 7 ones), like Krakatoa, Tambora (which caused year without a summer), the eruption earlier this year in Tonga too. They all happened through that mechanic, where the final blast occured due to collapse of the magma chamber after prolonged above average volcanic activity which drained/emptied the magma chamber too much. [in case of Tonga, water-magma interaction and dynamics played a role too, as the collapse was caused by ocean pressure too, and as water interacted with the magma chamber due to leaking), which is why they more often collapse than inland volcanic chambers.

Ice dynamics are similar too because of the pressure of a glacier / ice on top, which decreases activity but makes it far more explosive and risky when one happens, which is why volcanic activity sharply increases globally after the end of an ice age or melting episodes (and why volcanic activity could increase due to climate change) in currently cold areas. And of course changing sea levels have an impact too on volcanic activity. Whether a volcano is located above water, slightly under water or completely underwater, matters. It changes the type of eruption and changes the risk of volcanic activity and the way it occurs.

Not only does volcanic activity can have an impact on the climate, the climate also can have an impact on global volcanic activity for that reason. Papers show an increase of hugely sized volcanic eruptions after the end of the ice age, laacher see in Germany for example being one of them, a few in Iceland too, sometimes multiple big ones occuring in a short time frame.