Storm Desmond

[crossref]

explanation

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/name-our-storms

 

[Taff]

... Dumbing down for the masses? :shrug:

I think you've hit it on the head mate.

The Met Office: "We have seen how naming storms elsewhere in the world raises awareness of severe weather before it strikes. We hope that naming storms in line with the official severe weather warnings here will do the same and ensure everyone can keep themselves, their property and businesses safe and protected at times of severe weather."

IMO that's bullshit. That is their reasoning behind it?

Seriously, how will naming a storm "ensure everyone can keep themselves, their property and businesses safe and protected at times of severe weather"? If the weather forecast tells you there is a massive storm on the way, you're going to do what you can regardless of whether it has a name or not.

 

[Rushforth]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/storm-names.html

Until the early 1950s, tropical storms and hurricanes were tracked by year and the order in which they occurred during that year. Over time, it was learned that the use of short, easily remembered names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and reduces confusion when two or more tropical storms occur at the same time. In the past, confusion and false rumors resulted when storm advisories broadcast from radio stations were mistaken for warnings concerning an entirely different storm located hundreds of miles away.

That's how. Took me longer to copy paste than to google.

 

[didds]

so what is wrong with "One", "Two", "Three" ?

didds

 

[crossref]

it's a funny world. It never occured to me that there were people strongly against giving names to storms!

it seems to me to have no downside.

If I said - do you remember that big hurricane in 2005, you probably don't know which one I mean. If i say the fifth one that year, but the largest, you still don't know. but if I say Hurricane Katrina you know exactly what I mean.

 

[RobLev]

This applies to people too. Number Six, for example. Or Black Seven, coming in from the side again. Although you'd need Black Seven/n now.

Number Six is not a number; he's a free man.

 

[Rich_NL]

so what is wrong with "One", "Two", "Three" ?

didds

Cognitively people deal with names and objects differently (and more accessibly) than numbers.

 

[ChrisR]

Wives number 1, 2 & 3 all have names. Referring to them by name is appropriate when speaking with persons who know them. Otherwise they are "One", "Two" and "Three".

 

[crossref]

Wives number 1, 2 & 3 all have names. Referring to them by name is appropriate when speaking with persons who know them. Otherwise they are "One", "Two" and "Three".

which goes quite a long way to explaining why you have had three!

 

[OB..]

Why the sudden urge to name storms? We're up to "D" already and they only started doing it a few weeks ago.

It's a storm. I don't want to make friends with it; I just want to shelter from it.

Complete waste of time. The people affected couldn't care less what it's called. Seriously, who the hell cares what it's called?

If some people don't care, but others find it useful, where is the problem?

it's a funny world. It never occured to me that there were people strongly against giving names to storms!

it seems to me to have no downside.

If I said - do you remember that big hurricane in 2005, you probably don't know which one I mean. If i say the fifth one that year, but the largest, you still don't know. but if I say Hurricane Katrina you know exactly what I mean.

Agreed.