Wednesday, 9 March 2016

Naming storms. Why it gives me the fricking squits.

I wrote this post nearly a month ago in mid February 2016.  I’ve read it a couple of times since then as I’ve pondered whether or not to publish it.  Am I being too harsh, I wondered, or getting my knickers in a twist over something trivial.

In the end, I’ve decided, no – I need to say this stuff.  Someone needs to. 

But I have toned the original language down considerably. 

#storm-in-a-shitpot

----------------------Storm in a shitpot
One of the latest things to get right on my proverbials is the ridiculous policy the Met Office have adopted of naming storms.

In their infinite stupidity, they say the pilot project (with their equally ridiculous Irish counterparts) has been launched for the following reason:

The naming of storms using a single authoritative system should aid the communication of approaching severe weather through media partners and other government agencies. In this way the public will be better placed to keep themselves, their property and businesses safe.

I say: what absolute bollocks.

Like most Brits, I’ve got a morbid fascination for the weather. My father’s a self-styled full-time weather-watcher and observationist (yep – just made that word up). It’s his favourite topic of conversation. Michael Fish would have looked like a part-time amateur compared to him. And he’s not the only one; Britain loves its weather forecasts like no other nation on earth. In short: we’ve all got our eye on this stuff.

Everyone with half a brain knows that stormy weather brings with it risks of property damage and injury. Mass media and the internet mean people get to hear about this stuff more easily and quickly than ever before. That’s what makes the public ‘better placed’ to help themselves. You really don’t need to give a gale of wind a fricking Christian name to somehow give it kudos. A storm is a storm. Giving it cute name is merely to fall into the same anthropocentric trap we always do: convincing ourselves that as the supposedly superior species, we’ve tamed nature and have really got this one covered. Only we haven’t. And we never will.

And as for protecting people, is it really going to help those who like nothing better than to head out into the eye of the storm with their cameras? You know, the types of people who like to go out photographing waves while standing smack bang in the danger zone. Who get washed out to sea, never to be seen again. Or who get their faces smashed in as waves crash over them and hurl them at high speed across the harbour.

Giving a storm a first name isn’t going to save such people from their own stupidity. So let’s not even try.

Instead, let’s stop with this patronising bullshit of naming storms. If nothing else, it’s another Americanism at a time when that’s really, REALLY the last thing we need.

4 comments:

  1. Love this, and I would love to see #storm-in-a-shitpot trending just to see the tag popping up, genius ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hahaha - completely agree!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with this and wish there was more of an outcry about it. Apparently we should blame (or address) the World Meteorological Organization for naming storms with commonly used personal names.

    I feel this is an egregious affront to individuals who might have been blessed with a particular name at birth from their parents. It could actually prove traumatic to one who might have a name used in a destructive and deadly weather event.

    I see no reason in the media and world reiterating these names over and over when so much tragedy might surround one of these storms. It could lead to a lifetime of reminders to the individual and anyone who might interact with said individual later on, if what comes to mind immediately is a terrible storm's misery and destruction. This could be alleviated if we just stop using given proper names.

    Using people's names is actually a relatively new thing, (circa 1950's). These days, it seems to be just another way to sensationalize the story as the news media likes to do for ratings. Surely we are intelligent enough to use a different naming system, one that is less personal and more generic yet accurate and self-explanatory. Besides, it's not like they use unique names all the time. They actually repeat the same name over and over on a cycle. For instance, did you know that there have been at least 7 seperate "Katrina" weather events in the past 57 years? How does this not create a confusing naming system?

    Why not just move to a numerical standard? For instance, when it comes to Hurricanes, for the first Hurricane of the year, name it "Hurricane 1-2021" for the second, "Hurricane 2-2021", etc. ad naseum.

    Using numbers makes more sense than letters because there is no risk of running out and having to change the naming format.

    When someone is talking about a storm in the past, they can simply say, "Remember Hurricane 5-2005 ? Such a shame how it flooded New Orleans."

    #StopNamingStormsAfterPeople. Start referring to them by the numerical order they arrived.

    Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete