On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:30:32 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:





On Jan 30, 3:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:

Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.

Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.

Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Topography certainly can influence the weather, but as
LS points out it is due to more than just vertical
displacement alone. *And one also needs to keep other
factors in mind when looking at things like storm statistics.
Without looking up the climate statistics, I'd guess Johnson
City and Chattanooga are in similar general climate regimes,
but they are separated by enough horizontal distance that
they might not be exactly comparable. *Also Johnson City
is much smaller, at least by population and presumably also
somewhat proportionally by area, than Chattangooga, so
the "target" that each represents for severe weather may
be different. *And larger cities will tend to be in the valleys,
so there is a potential sampling bias from that. *And since
severe weather is comparatively rare, there are possible
statistical sampling differences, although those should tend
to go either way when looking at a large number of different
locations. *I think that just how much such factors account
for differences is difficult to say without careful study. *With
as many variables as there are in weather, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the various contributions.

Cheers,
Russell

I've read up on the severe storms, what ingredients need to be
present.
1. Steep lapse rates.
2, vertical shear
3. low pressure nearby
4. diving jet stream.

1,2,3 or all 4 is needed for severe storms that I've studied. Of
course you can just have excessive heat, 100F+, on a clear day and
have storms popup like mad.

With all those present it stills seems less severe, at least less
frequent, in places of higher elevation.

Am I catching on to this at all?

Perhaps I should pick 2 data points closer as you suggested.

How about Johnson City and Knoxville Tennessee. They're much closer
but the elevations are very different.

The more variables that you're not interested in that you can
minimize the differences of, the better. Other than the summer
I spent in Knoxville, I don't have much experience in the area,
and when I was there it had pretty boring weather. Careful
observation and long familiarity with the weather in an area is
very helpful when one studies such things.


Any opinions?

Also you mentioned severe as being relatively rare but I seem to think
it's more common. Is this because of my location's experience, in
other words am I biased?

In part I was referring to trying to establish differences, and
compared to regular weather one might be interested in, especially
temperatures, severe weather is rare most places. I mean, you have
temperature every day, so the samples are larger than for severe
weather. Also it depends on what you mean by "severe". If you
include all thunderstorms there will be more instances than if you
only consider storms that produce hail, wind, etc. that satisfy NWS
criteria for "severe". I wasn't sure which you're interested in.


I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.


Again, am I getting any of this correct?

thanks for your time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you're on the track. During the time I spent in Knoxville,
I think there were two days with severe weather, but it was a
fairly dry summer despite the almost constant forecast of "chance
of afternoon thunderstorms", so you probably have a better feel for
how the weather usually behaves where you live than I do.

Cheers,
Russell

On Jan 30, 8:59*pm, Russell wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:


snip

I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. *Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.

I meant to say that number seems a little high to me. And
it may depend on how tornado alley is defined. I've seen
different authors produce different maps.

Cheers,
Russell

In article 59cb5be9-095e-41fd-a33a-dbbe0e485189
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...
On Jan 30, 8:59*pm, Russell wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:


snip

I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. *Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.

I meant to say that number seems a little high to me. And
it may depend on how tornado alley is defined. I've seen
different authors produce different maps.

Cheers,
Russell


The death rate in the US, overall, is about 1 person per 5 million per
year. In Oklahoma and Kansas, over the last 20 years, it's been a
little less than 1 person per 1 million. The highest rates are probably
in the southeastern US, as a result of high mobile home populations,
poor visibility and, frequently, faster storm movement. In Alabama, the
death rate has been about 1.5 per 1 million over the last 20 years.

--
Harold Brooks
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory

On Jan 31, 9:47*am, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article 59cb5be9-095e-41fd-a33a-dbbe0e485189
@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jan 30, 8:59*pm, Russell wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:

snip

I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. *Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.

I meant to say that number seems a little high to me. *And
it may depend on how tornado alley is defined. *I've seen
different authors produce different maps.

Cheers,
Russell

The death rate in the US, overall, is about 1 person per 5 million per
year. *In Oklahoma and Kansas, over the last 20 years, it's been a
little less than 1 person per 1 million. *The highest rates are probably
in the southeastern US, as a result of high mobile home populations,
poor visibility and, frequently, faster storm movement. *In Alabama, the
death rate has been about 1.5 per 1 million over the last 20 years.

--
Harold Brooks
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory
- Hide quoted text -

Thanks for your expert input, Harold.

Cheers,
Russell

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:08:21 -0500,
Crackles McFarly , in
wrote:

+ Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
+ stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
+ thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Yeah, that's one of the criterion. Someone had to hear thunder/see
lightning, or it can't really be a thunderstorm.

+ Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
+ Weird stuff.

It would be weird, right up until that 58+ MPH winds rip your roof off.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:15 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:

On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:30:32 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:





On Jan 30, 3:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:

Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.

Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.

Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Topography certainly can influence the weather, but as
LS points out it is due to more than just vertical
displacement alone. *And one also needs to keep other
factors in mind when looking at things like storm statistics.
Without looking up the climate statistics, I'd guess Johnson
City and Chattanooga are in similar general climate regimes,
but they are separated by enough horizontal distance that
they might not be exactly comparable. *Also Johnson City
is much smaller, at least by population and presumably also
somewhat proportionally by area, than Chattangooga, so
the "target" that each represents for severe weather may
be different. *And larger cities will tend to be in the valleys,
so there is a potential sampling bias from that. *And since
severe weather is comparatively rare, there are possible
statistical sampling differences, although those should tend
to go either way when looking at a large number of different
locations. *I think that just how much such factors account
for differences is difficult to say without careful study. *With
as many variables as there are in weather, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the various contributions.

Cheers,
Russell

I've read up on the severe storms, what ingredients need to be
present.
1. Steep lapse rates.
2, vertical shear
3. low pressure nearby
4. diving jet stream.

1,2,3 or all 4 is needed for severe storms that I've studied. Of
course you can just have excessive heat, 100F+, on a clear day and
have storms popup like mad.

With all those present it stills seems less severe, at least less
frequent, in places of higher elevation.

Am I catching on to this at all?

Perhaps I should pick 2 data points closer as you suggested.

How about Johnson City and Knoxville Tennessee. They're much closer
but the elevations are very different.

The more variables that you're not interested in that you can
minimize the differences of, the better. Other than the summer
I spent in Knoxville, I don't have much experience in the area,
and when I was there it had pretty boring weather. Careful
observation and long familiarity with the weather in an area is
very helpful when one studies such things.


Any opinions?

Also you mentioned severe as being relatively rare but I seem to think
it's more common. Is this because of my location's experience, in
other words am I biased?

In part I was referring to trying to establish differences, and
compared to regular weather one might be interested in, especially
temperatures, severe weather is rare most places. I mean, you have
temperature every day, so the samples are larger than for severe
weather. Also it depends on what you mean by "severe". If you
include all thunderstorms there will be more instances than if you
only consider storms that produce hail, wind, etc. that satisfy NWS
criteria for "severe". I wasn't sure which you're interested in.


I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.


Again, am I getting any of this correct?

thanks for your time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you're on the track. During the time I spent in Knoxville,
I think there were two days with severe weather, but it was a
fairly dry summer despite the almost constant forecast of "chance
of afternoon thunderstorms", so you probably have a better feel for
how the weather usually behaves where you live than I do.

Cheers,
Russell


What about a more broad risk of severe weather. Not including
tornaodes, say only severe thunderstorms?

In my city we 'average' 75 thunderstorm days per year but obviously
all those times are not severe.

I made a chart about this for 2007 and the number that actually turned
severe was under 5%.

What made my jaw drop was the local forecasts accuracy, something
around 66% which I thought was low.

I included all surrounding counties and if a drop of rain hit anywhere
I called it correct. 33% of the time they blew it.

But back to elevation. I guess I was trying to find an escape plan by
moving to a higher elevation without having to move west of the
rockies.

I've enjoyed this conversation with you Russell..

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:47:39 -0600, Harold Brooks
sayd the following:

The death rate in the US, overall, is about 1 person per 5 million per
year. In Oklahoma and Kansas, over the last 20 years, it's been a
little less than 1 person per 1 million. The highest rates are probably
in the southeastern US, as a result of high mobile home populations,
poor visibility and, frequently, faster storm movement. In Alabama, the
death rate has been about 1.5 per 1 million over the last 20 years.

Mr. brooks, I've read online that the average number of Tornadoes in a
year is 1,500 and that the number of deaths average 80 per year. Is
this correct or close?

Also do you see elevation as a way to LESSON your chances of seeing
severe weather.

thanks

On Jan 31, 3:18*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:59:15 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:





On Jan 30, 7:09*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:30:32 -0800 (PST), Russell
sayd the following:

On Jan 30, 3:08*pm, Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:15:37 -0800 (PST), LiquidSquid
sayd the following:

Being I live on a hill in just this sort of scenario, here is what I
observe:

Storms tend to "split" as they approach my location from the west. One
half will remain over lower terrain, while the other will head up into
higher terrain. The storms tend to not linger where there is an long-
term elevation change. To my south it is an average elevation of 1500
ft and increases towards PA, to my north, 650 ft and slowly decreases
to lake Ontario. My house is situated on one of the first hills (1300
ft) as you approach Bristol hills from the north, so it is low-lands
and fairly flat to the north, high land and hilly to the south.

It is interesting to watch a storm make like a curve-ball and head out
over the higher terrain away from my location as my gardens wither.
Bristol mountain is the usual target for many of these storms, as it
is one of the highest elevations around at over 2200ft.

The nastiest storms are immediately to my north, which is partly due
to the deeper atmosphere providing more energy, and partly due to
convergence between lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and over land.

In all, even though I am at a higher location, we are in a transition
zone, and more often than not, the storms miss us. In fact it is quite
frustrating as I enjoy a good storm. When we do get a storm, we get a
little more lightning activity, but 600 feet of change from average
topology does not mean much to a 2-mile long lightning stroke.

So to answer your question: There are many more factors than two point
locations that need to be taken into account to predict a trend. In my
location the lakes provide the greater influence over storm paths than
the hills do. Down in PA where they are far enough away from lakes,
the hills have more influence (plus they are larger).

Well I was comparing two cities near me and their storm activity and
recorded severe weather events.

Johnson city TN compared to Chattanooga TN.

JC is about 1,000 ft above sea level Higher than chattanooga, and it
bears out in the noaa data that JC gets far fewer severe events than
chattanooga.

The same goes for the data on the appalachian mountain cities.

It seems the more of a plateau or mountain you're on the less chances
of severe weather.

We have a tiny mountain in town but you could drive your car around it
in less than 5 minutes, so the differences in weather are not extreme
except for winter weather like snow.

Of course their is the odd thing I love about last night. It never
stormed, not even lightening or thunder YET we had a 'severe
thunderstorm warming' because of 58+ mph wind gusts.

Kinda like a flood warning in the desert and it's not been raining.
Weird stuff.

One day I'll get over my fascination with weather but I suspect I
won't realize it since I'll be dead.

Anyone has anything else to add PLEASE do so.

I hate the politico posts just like you do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Topography certainly can influence the weather, but as
LS points out it is due to more than just vertical
displacement alone. *And one also needs to keep other
factors in mind when looking at things like storm statistics.
Without looking up the climate statistics, I'd guess Johnson
City and Chattanooga are in similar general climate regimes,
but they are separated by enough horizontal distance that
they might not be exactly comparable. *Also Johnson City
is much smaller, at least by population and presumably also
somewhat proportionally by area, than Chattangooga, so
the "target" that each represents for severe weather may
be different. *And larger cities will tend to be in the valleys,
so there is a potential sampling bias from that. *And since
severe weather is comparatively rare, there are possible
statistical sampling differences, although those should tend
to go either way when looking at a large number of different
locations. *I think that just how much such factors account
for differences is difficult to say without careful study. *With
as many variables as there are in weather, it is sometimes
difficult to separate the various contributions.

Cheers,
Russell

I've read up on the severe storms, what ingredients need to be
present.
1. Steep lapse rates.
2, vertical shear
3. low pressure nearby
4. diving jet stream.

1,2,3 or all 4 is needed for severe storms that I've studied. Of
course you can just have excessive heat, 100F+, on a clear day and
have storms popup like mad.

With all those present it stills seems less severe, at least less
frequent, in places of higher elevation.

Am I catching on to this at all?

Perhaps I should pick 2 data points closer as you suggested.

How about Johnson City and Knoxville Tennessee. They're much closer
but the elevations are very different.

The more variables that you're not interested in that you can
minimize the differences of, the better. *Other than the summer
I spent in Knoxville, I don't have much experience in the area,
and when I was there it had pretty boring weather. *Careful
observation and long familiarity with the weather in an area is
very helpful when one studies such things.

Any opinions?

Also you mentioned severe as being relatively rare but I seem to think
it's more common. Is this because of my location's experience, in
other words am I biased?

In part I was referring to trying to establish differences, and
compared to regular weather one might be interested in, especially
temperatures, severe weather is rare most places. *I mean, you have
temperature every day, so the samples are larger than for severe
weather. *Also it depends on what you mean by "severe". *If you
include all thunderstorms there will be more instances than if you
only consider storms that produce hail, wind, etc. that satisfy NWS
criteria for "severe". *I wasn't sure which you're interested in.

I know the overall odds of being killed by a tornado is 1 in 2 million
but if you live in tornado alley those odds approach more like 1 in
500,000

That last number seems low to me if it is per year, but maybe
it's correct. *Anyway, you're right that where you live can
make a difference.

Again, am I getting any of this correct?

thanks for your time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you're on the track. *During the time I spent in Knoxville,
I think there were two days with severe weather, but it was a
fairly dry summer despite the almost constant forecast of "chance
of afternoon thunderstorms", so you probably have a better feel for
how the weather usually behaves where you live than I do.

Cheers,
Russell

What about a more broad risk of severe weather. Not including
tornaodes, say only severe thunderstorms?

In my city we 'average' 75 thunderstorm days per year but obviously
all those times are not severe.

I made a chart about this for 2007 and the number that actually turned
severe was under 5%.

That sounds like a reasonable value, although someone
like Harold would probably know better than I what the
general fraction is.


What made my jaw drop was the local forecasts accuracy, something
around 66% which I thought was low.

What does that 66% represent, fraction of the time that
thunderstorms were forecast and actually occurred?

Forecast verification is a whole can o' worms. Entire book
chapters are devoted to the techniques. The book _Authors
of the Storm_ discusses it in the local office context. I
used to do that as part of my job at CPC, where it was
comparatively easy.


I included all surrounding counties and if a drop of rain hit anywhere
I called it correct. 33% of the time they blew it.

There is a tendency to overwarn, which varies from office
to office. This is also discussed in _Authors of the Storm_.
In a broader sense, as Bohr said, "Prediction is difficult,
especially the future."


But back to elevation. I guess I was trying to find an escape plan by
moving to a higher elevation without having to move west of the
rockies.

You don't have to move west of the Rockies, since a
move east of the Rockies could also decrease your
risk from severe thunderstorms, but some other risks
would probably increase. It is probably easier to have
a safe storm shelter, weather radio with auto warning
activation, and a weather eye, but no system is perfect.

I once was called yearly for a hurricane outlook by
someone who lived in Florida and was terrified of
hurricanes, but couldn't or wouldn't move. I have a
friend who is scared of tornadoes, for good reason, but
still lives in Iowa. At least you're planning.


I've enjoyed this conversation with you Russell..

Thanks. Hope it helps.

Cheers,
Russell

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article , helpmeplz2008
@yahoo.com says...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:47:39 -0600, Harold Brooks
sayd the following:

The death rate in the US, overall, is about 1 person per 5 million per
year. In Oklahoma and Kansas, over the last 20 years, it's been a
little less than 1 person per 1 million. The highest rates are probably
in the southeastern US, as a result of high mobile home populations,
poor visibility and, frequently, faster storm movement. In Alabama, the
death rate has been about 1.5 per 1 million over the last 20 years.

Mr. brooks, I've read online that the average number of Tornadoes in a
year is 1,500 and that the number of deaths average 80 per year. Is
this correct or close?

US tornadoes are ~1200 per year and over the last decade and there have
been 636 deaths in the last 10 years.

Also do you see elevation as a way to LESSON your chances of seeing
severe weather.

If you go way up, you probably lessen your chances of a tornado,
although they have crossed the continental divide in the Rockies, or
really large hail, but heavy snow increases. The decrease in tornadoes
and hail is probably more an effect of where the high terrain is located
in the US relative to other features, rather than an elevation effect.
If the Wichita or Quartz Mountains in southwest Oklahoma were a few
thousand feet more above the surrounding terrain, I don't think you'd
see much of an impact from the elevation. The tornado/severe storm
distribution in the US is essentially defined by the presence of the
Gulf, as a moisture source, and the Rockies, as a source of mid-
tropospheric potential instability.

Harold

--
Harold Brooks
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:23:05 -0600, Harold Brooks
sayd the following:

The tornado/severe storm
distribution in the US is essentially defined by the presence of the
Gulf, as a moisture source, and the Rockies, as a source of mid-
tropospheric potential instability.

So since I'm really close to the gulf stream my chances are higher?

Would moving north lesson my chances?

I cannot stand thunderstorms period. I wish to avoid them at all costs
but do not want to leave TN.

thanks