
Advocates want to name heatwaves like hurricanes to raise awareness of dangers - pseudolus
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/naming-heatwaves-custodians-vs-covid-19-nba-barbers-online-moderators-jesse-owens-granddaughter-and-more-1.5719784/advocates-want-to-name-heatwaves-like-hurricanes-to-raise-awareness-of-their-dangers-and-save-lives-1.5719800
======
leetrout
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).

~~~
Cthulhu_
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.

~~~
elmo2you
I fully agree with that, but I think it's a manifestation of a far wider trend
that might be far more worrying.

In this age of information overload, where the struggle for people's attention
has become nothing short of warfare, I see both advocacy groups and commercial
entities ever so further seek to dramatise their message, just to "maximize
their reach" and not get drowned out in the sea of other
sensationalized/polarized information. While this motivation or a even sense
of need is understandable, with everyone "competing" only for their own
interests in relationship to everything else, it essentially is a race to the
bottom.

The (psychological) effects of it do (already) go a bit further than people
just shrugging. On the population as a whole, it (significantly) increases
stress levels, general distrust (certainly warranted), and maybe even cause a
constant sense of danger or a believe that this world has gone mad. The
effects of which should not be underestimated. All of which can cause both
individuals and groups of people to make really poor decisions.

~~~
luckylion
It's essentially the tragedy of the commons, with the commons being the
audience's attention and stress level.

------
Abishek_Muthian
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_ '?

~~~
rhino369
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.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm taking no particular position, because I don't go out of my way to read on
the subject, but I did notice an article recently which said that we seem to
be firmly on the worst of the likely IPCC scenarios from a few years ago, not
in the middle.

~~~
makomk
The media have been pushing hard on the idea that we're living in the worst-
case RCP8.5 IPCC scenario. The article that particularly annoyed me was the
Atlantic one which based this claim on a Twitter thread that, if you actually
clicked through to it, showed us right in the middle of the middle two IPCC
scenarios plain as day on the graph. (The tweet actually claimed that we were
closer to RCP8.5 than he'd like, which is of course true since all the
emissions scenarios are relatively close together early on and he wants us on
the best one.) It's not true, of course. Similarly, RCP8.5 is not the
"business as usual" scenario that happens if we don't take action, as the
media also likes to suggests - it actually requires a rather improbable
combination of events. The media are actively making people less informed on
this stuff in order to sell fear and a narrative.

------
nemo44x
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.

~~~
TheRealSteel
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.

~~~
thehappypm
How exactly does climate change lead to a world war?

I can understand that there will be many climate refugees, but refugees don’t
form armies that can stand up to a standing Western army. I’ve always
understood the biggest threat to be mass displacement and starvation, leading
to closed off borders, and poverty and death in severely impacted countries
like Bangladesh.

But world war? Not so sure. The world powers will easily adapt to climate
change.

The US is immense and for every county with more forest fires, a faraway
county will have better crop yields. For every city abandoned by floods,
inland cities will swell in population and prestige.

~~~
KineticLensman
> For every city abandoned by floods, inland cities will swell in population
> and prestige

That will be poor consolation for the inhabitants of the flooded cities. Also,
a lot of infrastructure (think docks and roads) is located on the coasts,
often associated with the cities. This will be very expensive to replace in a
carbon neutral way, especially as the sea levels continue to rise.

~~~
thehappypm
I understand it is not ideal, but that’s a huge jump to “world war”.

------
cos2pi
It's worth mentioning here that heatwaves are the leading cause of weather-
related death in the US for the past 30 years.

[https://www.weather.gov/hazstat](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
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.

~~~
DataGata
I am terrified of a hurricane knocking out power throughout Florida followed
by even a mild heatwave. Nursing homes could barely handle keeping their staff
from going to the bars and getting Covid- are we to believe they are prepared
to deal with hundreds of cheaply built old-person dorms turned into sous
vides?

------
freddealmeida
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?

------
RegBarclay
They lost me at "We need more drama..."

No, I do not think we need more drama.

------
krapp
How about not naming weather events at all?

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_
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.

~~~
krapp
But does it matter to the public whether they roads are closed due to Irene or
Jacques?

Admittedly, the names are catchier but I'm not certain they're necessary to
convey information. It's not as if they have to keep track of a dozen
hurricanes at a time.

~~~
_ph_
Giving a hurricane a name raises awareness. When a named hurricane is coming,
people have a very clear sign, that they should spend attention. Having the
name, also makes following the events easier. So it would be quite logical to
name other similar dangers.

------
johnday
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.

~~~
dylan604
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.

------
Jiocus
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.

~~~
Waterfall
They sure do! (Only if the names are female.)

------
roamerz
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.

~~~
umvi
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)?

~~~
simonsarris
Pre-1800, about 1.8 million ha burned each year in CA:

[https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-
Stephens07.pdf)

> Approximately 1.8 million ha burned annually in California prehistorically
> (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is
> 88% of the total annual wildfire area in the entire US during a decade
> (1994–2004) characterized as ‘‘extreme’’ regarding wildfires. The idea that
> US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is
> certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective. Skies were likely smoky much
> of the summer and fall in California during the prehistoric period.

See also:
[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345)

> Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem [...] however, important
> exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these
> perceived overall trends.

~~~
wtvanhest
I'm not sure who the best person to ask on this topic is, but do you have any
sense for smoke prediction models? Over the weekend, I put together the
resources I could find easily, but I'm wondering what, if any good prediction
models exist.

Copernicus - [https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/global-forecast-
plots](https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/global-forecast-plots)

NASA GEOS -
[https://fluid.nccs.nasa.gov/cf/classic_geos_cf/](https://fluid.nccs.nasa.gov/cf/classic_geos_cf/)

From those, I concluded that we could see fresh air in san francisco as early
as this afternoon. Right now, that doesn't seem possible, so I'm wondering if
there are other models that exist?

------
scythe
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:

[https://weather.com/safety/news/2019-09-17-top-cause-
weather...](https://weather.com/safety/news/2019-09-17-top-cause-weather-
fatalities-nws-cwa-united-states-map)

------
whymauri
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).

~~~
Spooky23
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.

------
downshun
Give natural disasters a CVE code

~~~
Sebb767
And the bigger ones get a punny name, a logo, an information website with a
half description screaming doomsday - and Merch, of course ;)

------
arnvald
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.

~~~
pornel
Name them after oil and coal companies. "Death toll of Heatwave Exxon rises".

------
tejado
In germany, the high pressure areas are named after male names and low
pressure after female names:
[https://www.bavariannews.com/blog/2018/10/03/how-storms-
in-g...](https://www.bavariannews.com/blog/2018/10/03/how-storms-in-germany-
get-their-names/)

~~~
svara
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.

~~~
dylan604
great, that's not confusing at all. hmm, i'm seeing a warning. i should know
what to do. wait, what year is it? damn, if only i could remember even/odd
male/female cycles. oh well, best if i just ignore it and carry on with my
day. at least it's not a tuesday. i never got the hang of tuesday.

------
adenner
In the US the weather channel tried to do the same thing for winter storms. No
one else pays any attention to their names at all.

------
LanceH
The evidence of climate change isn't about some place being warm. That would
make some place being cool counter-evidence.

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
how about a name for when the air quality on the entire westcoast becomes very
dangerous for anyone with lung problems, asthma, COPD, post-covid, etc.

[https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#2.56/28.39/...](https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#2.56/28.39/-87.34)

------
thrownaway954
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.

------
gravy
What if they just assigned "categories" like they do to Hurricanes?

------
11235813213455
We should have extended lockdowns for each heatwave

------
cmurf
It's worked for malware, hasn't it?

