I am not a fan. We’re heading to naming all the major weather which happens often and is just going to desensitize people.
The NOAA already doesn’t recognize winter storm names and I would expect them to use the same rationale for not naming heat waves, cold waves or any other extreme weather events that don’t bring destruction. (Not arguing against the danger of heatwaves).
Agree. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I strongly suspect this is more motivated by weather news marketing and ad revenue strategy than an altruistic desire to "raise awareness".
That's exactly it, it's the "boy crying wolf" issue and everyone will just shrug. I found them starting to give "regular" storms already overly dramatic, or that they have started to hand out "yellow", "orange" weather alerts. Those are just not actionable for me as an average regular citizen. Mind you they probably mean that measures are being put in place for others though.
Also agree. I've stopped watching the Weather Channel because I can't stand all of the stupid storm names. Naming everything doesn't raise awareness, it just creates fatigue and reduces the impact of "named == you'd better pay attention".
I think they're a bit to aggressive in naming tropical storms as it is.
Currently any tropical storm that reaches 39mph/63kph gets a name, which to me is pretty low threshold. Maybe if every two-bit storm didn't get a name people would pay a bit more attention.
> I am not a fan. We’re heading to naming all the major weather which happens often and is just going to desensitize people.
I have to concur and the prospect of some small town having a welcome Heatwave Karen parade is one that will sadly only go to normalise attitudes towards climate change and may even become counter productive. More so as the demographic they are going for that would warm to naming such weather events are equally more inclined to be less believing of climate change.
While we are at it, can we change some vocabulary used for sensitising climate change from 'For the planet' to 'Your children will die soon, your grandchildren sooner'?
People will be able to smell the bullshit. The idea that climate change will be apocalyptic (for first world nations) in your grandchildren's time frame is just as loony-toons as denying it exists at all. The scientific consensus is nowhere near that bad.
I'm stunned how even when I agree with other people about climate breakdown happening, they think "Miami flooding" and I think "my kids dying horribly in a resource war or food riot".
Though people seem to be finally understanding that sea level rise is a minor concern all things considered.
While I agree "for the planet" is terrible messaging (namely, the planet's been through worse and will be just fine), I also think your proposed change is bullshit.
Your children will and their children will be fine, but there's big and real chance that they will not have the standard of life you have and certainly far below what they could have. I think that's plenty scary in its own.
The plant will be fine and so will your children and their children. If you live in a low lying area like Maldives then they might not be living where you live now but they will certainly be able to live. Alarmist claims like "everyone will die" only serve to discredit scientists even though they aren't the ones making them.
Are we going to officially name every tornado? Every earthquake? The article leads with “we need more drama...” - I think we have enough, thank you.
We need to consider the psychological affects of these things. We already stir people into collective panics for so many things. Do we need to add another? People need less anxiety in their lives.
We ABSOLUTELY need to make people panic about heatwaves. We need to make people lose sleep about it. Get distracted by it. Feel sick about.
Climate change is going to kill millions if we don't act hard, and fast. We need a global, coordinated, war-like effort immediately to prevent the displacement of billions and a new world war.
Coronavirus lockdown is not even going to be a blip on the radar compared to life on this planet if we don't start removing carbon from the atmosphere on a global scale.
The fact that it's inconvenient for your stress levels is irrelevant.
It doesn't kill you directly, but the vulnerable are easy prey (elderly, immobile, etc.). A story that was shared with me about the lethality of heat was basically an overweight individual fell off his mobility scooter and was knocked unconscious, and just cooked to death.
I think this may be a misconception that names raise awareness. In Japan, typhoons and large storms (tsunami..) get scientific names. However awareness is quite well represented in the population. I think what you need to change is how information is distributed in a culture that is more focused on video/music than reading. As well, tying this back into the costs they may face if they ignore it (fear sells)
However since we are now entering a solar minimum (entered?) I think this problem will disappear in the next few decades (or centuries). The question is does this problem need to be tackled with this new paradigm?
We shouldn't have to anthropomorphize something before people consider it a threat, like telling children to go to bed or the boogeyman will get them. Asian countries tend to assign typhoons a sequential id but they're still somehow cognizant of the danger.
Naming large weather events makes a lot of sense. Hurricanes are very good example of that. They are actual entities which behavior gets tracked. It is much easier for the public to keep up to date, when there is an easy to remember name.
Sounds like a good idea. It might be harder to delineate when a heatwave is worthy of being named, but I'm sure the Met office (or the equivalent across the Atlantic) can manage it.
That said, I'm not convinced that giving it a name is enough to make people consider it dangerous.
Don't we anthropomorphize things to make them more friendly? Here comes Heatwave Henry III. Everybody wave back! Hopefully, he won't be nearly as bad as that evil Henry II.
Has there been any research into general population behaviour when faced with unnamed vs named events?
My first thought is that anthropomorphizing dangerous weather phenomena to neutral-sounding beings could downplay their dreadful potential.
People seem rational enough to dehumanize mostly anything (or anyone) else they perceive as a threat. In fiction, writers use sinister names of characters, as a warning to the reader to prepare for the protagonists inevitable trial later on.
While we are at it we should name some of these west coast fires after the politicians who have supported shutting down the forests to sensible resource management.
Yet west coast politicians want to stop calling them "wild fires" in favor of a new term "climate fires".
So the question is, how much of these wildfires are due to climate change, and how much is due to bad forest "resource management" (not sure what this entails - preventing more frequent smaller fires with firefighting which causes bigger fires years later?) and how much to some other reason (water table depletion, etc)?
I think this is a better idea than naming winter storms, the comparison we seem to have settled on.
The first criterion is coherence: a hurricane has a (somewhat) well-defined magnitude while frontal systems have different intensity in different places, highly subject to geography. A heat wave is more well-defined than a front but less than a hurricane.
However, the more important thing to know is that extreme heat is already the deadliest form of weather event in the United States and will likely get worse in the coming years. Being able to put a name to the phenomenon that killed your grandmother has a powerful psychological effect. See:
I'm from Florida, and I think this is a good idea. Giving our hurricanes names helps cement them in the collective conscious of the region, and it definitely helps with awareness during early schooling.
I don't think having names for hurricanes ever desensitized me to them. The main driver for desensitization is time. It's either been so long since the last catastrophic hurricane that you're underestimating how bad they can get, or you've seen so many Cat <=3 hurricanes that you literally don't consider them a threat (a classic mistake, since they can gain strength so quickly).
I agree with you — one thing that is different with hurricanes is that every one is a different distinct event and when talking about a hurricane it’s important to distinguish between specific storms.
Even snowstorms are pretty much cut and dry. If it snows a lot, it sucks for a couple of days. The biggest variable is the competence of whomever is plowing.
With heat, forget it. “Heatwave Harry” vs “Coldsnap Sally” are exactly the same — there is no variance in hazard. Bad things happen at specific known extreme temperatures.
Half-jokingly: let's give them some scary sounding, hellish names.
Hurricane Benedict sounds like a friendly neighbour.
Heatwave Astaroth - that's some serious stuff right here.
As long as we're half-joking: future headline prompting mass-murder if your suggestion taken up - Local Church announces NOAA aligned with Satan, heatwave caused by federal government trying to hasten onset of the antichrist!
As the article you cited points out, this has been changed in 1998. Low pressure areas get male names in odd years and female names in even years; vice versa for high pressure areas.
i'm sorry to say but all this will do is desensitize people further. it used to be that when they named a storm it was going to be bad and you paid attention. now they name every damn storm out there and it just makes you tune out.
[+] [-] leetrout|5 years ago|reply
The NOAA already doesn’t recognize winter storm names and I would expect them to use the same rationale for not naming heat waves, cold waves or any other extreme weather events that don’t bring destruction. (Not arguing against the danger of heatwaves).
[+] [-] shireboy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatnoah|5 years ago|reply
Also agree. I've stopped watching the Weather Channel because I can't stand all of the stupid storm names. Naming everything doesn't raise awareness, it just creates fatigue and reduces the impact of "named == you'd better pay attention".
[+] [-] tosser0001|5 years ago|reply
Currently any tropical storm that reaches 39mph/63kph gets a name, which to me is pretty low threshold. Maybe if every two-bit storm didn't get a name people would pay a bit more attention.
[+] [-] Zenst|5 years ago|reply
I have to concur and the prospect of some small town having a welcome Heatwave Karen parade is one that will sadly only go to normalise attitudes towards climate change and may even become counter productive. More so as the demographic they are going for that would warm to naming such weather events are equally more inclined to be less believing of climate change.
[+] [-] HumblyTossed|5 years ago|reply
I agree. This is just going to turn into a media nightmare and people will simply tune out.
[+] [-] Abishek_Muthian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhino369|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CalRobert|5 years ago|reply
Though people seem to be finally understanding that sea level rise is a minor concern all things considered.
[+] [-] jstanley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|5 years ago|reply
Your children will and their children will be fine, but there's big and real chance that they will not have the standard of life you have and certainly far below what they could have. I think that's plenty scary in its own.
[+] [-] V6HBGNQHU|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bzb5|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nemo44x|5 years ago|reply
We need to consider the psychological affects of these things. We already stir people into collective panics for so many things. Do we need to add another? People need less anxiety in their lives.
[+] [-] TheRealSteel|5 years ago|reply
Climate change is going to kill millions if we don't act hard, and fast. We need a global, coordinated, war-like effort immediately to prevent the displacement of billions and a new world war.
Coronavirus lockdown is not even going to be a blip on the radar compared to life on this planet if we don't start removing carbon from the atmosphere on a global scale.
The fact that it's inconvenient for your stress levels is irrelevant.
[+] [-] cos2pi|5 years ago|reply
https://www.weather.gov/hazstat
I'm not advocating for the personification of all extreme weather events, but the lethality of heatwaves is often overlooked.
[+] [-] mrmuagi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freddealmeida|5 years ago|reply
However since we are now entering a solar minimum (entered?) I think this problem will disappear in the next few decades (or centuries). The question is does this problem need to be tackled with this new paradigm?
[+] [-] RegBarclay|5 years ago|reply
No, I do not think we need more drama.
[+] [-] krapp|5 years ago|reply
We shouldn't have to anthropomorphize something before people consider it a threat, like telling children to go to bed or the boogeyman will get them. Asian countries tend to assign typhoons a sequential id but they're still somehow cognizant of the danger.
[+] [-] _ph_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnday|5 years ago|reply
That said, I'm not convinced that giving it a name is enough to make people consider it dangerous.
[+] [-] dylan604|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jiocus|5 years ago|reply
My first thought is that anthropomorphizing dangerous weather phenomena to neutral-sounding beings could downplay their dreadful potential.
People seem rational enough to dehumanize mostly anything (or anyone) else they perceive as a threat. In fiction, writers use sinister names of characters, as a warning to the reader to prepare for the protagonists inevitable trial later on.
[+] [-] Waterfall|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roamerz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umvi|5 years ago|reply
So the question is, how much of these wildfires are due to climate change, and how much is due to bad forest "resource management" (not sure what this entails - preventing more frequent smaller fires with firefighting which causes bigger fires years later?) and how much to some other reason (water table depletion, etc)?
[+] [-] scythe|5 years ago|reply
The first criterion is coherence: a hurricane has a (somewhat) well-defined magnitude while frontal systems have different intensity in different places, highly subject to geography. A heat wave is more well-defined than a front but less than a hurricane.
However, the more important thing to know is that extreme heat is already the deadliest form of weather event in the United States and will likely get worse in the coming years. Being able to put a name to the phenomenon that killed your grandmother has a powerful psychological effect. See:
https://weather.com/safety/news/2019-09-17-top-cause-weather...
[+] [-] whymauri|5 years ago|reply
I don't think having names for hurricanes ever desensitized me to them. The main driver for desensitization is time. It's either been so long since the last catastrophic hurricane that you're underestimating how bad they can get, or you've seen so many Cat <=3 hurricanes that you literally don't consider them a threat (a classic mistake, since they can gain strength so quickly).
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
Even snowstorms are pretty much cut and dry. If it snows a lot, it sucks for a couple of days. The biggest variable is the competence of whomever is plowing.
With heat, forget it. “Heatwave Harry” vs “Coldsnap Sally” are exactly the same — there is no variance in hazard. Bad things happen at specific known extreme temperatures.
[+] [-] downshun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sebb767|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjvnq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DudeInBasement|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arnvald|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pornel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tejado|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] svara|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adenner|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LanceH|5 years ago|reply
I've already seen this play out with multiple years of seeing one side screech, "look how hot it is" and the other, "this winter is cold."
[+] [-] ck2|5 years ago|reply
https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#2.56/28.39/...
[+] [-] thrownaway954|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gravy|5 years ago|reply