Storm Names

Sillybilly

As I sit under my metaphorical battened down hatches (all good by the way - the thatch is coping and we haven’t sunk yet!) , I just wondered why storms get cute names like “Ciaran” or “Daphne”. Wouldn’t “Storm Bastard” or Storm “C….” be more appropriate?  Just sayin.  Stay safe out there folks. 

North Lower Neil

They don't only want to be able to talk about them after the watershed.

Karim_myBagheri

"Oh FFS not another one, Storm" or "Storm It's gonna piss it down" or "You call that a Storm?! Now 87 that was a storm, Storm" 

Slartibartfast

How about ancient bad guys/gals? Could do it alphabetically, I'd start with Attila.

thai malaysia addick

I think they should be named after Charlton players. Storm Kishishev and Storm Humphrey have a certain ring to them.

Rizzo

I was told the other day that they are named after people working at the Met Office. Not sure if that's true or not though.

Rob7Lee

Below are the names set for 23/24, they aren't named after Met Office Staff, the names are shared with Ireland and Netherlands. You can put forward names to the met office, but they also use names from relevant people:

See here, from abut 12:20 onwards if you don't want the other stuff;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HU2dN8Myh4&t=838s

Agnes	25 September 2023	27 - 28 September 2023
Babet	16 October 2023	18 - 21 October 2023
Ciarán	29 October 2023
Debi
Elin
Fergus
Gerrit
Henk
Isha
Jocelyn
Kathleen
Lilian
Minnie
Nicholas
Olga
Piet
Regina
Stuart
Tamiko
Vincent
Walid

Chizz

Rob7Lee said:

Below are the names set for 23/24, they aren't named after Met Office Staff, the names are shared with Ireland and Netherlands. You can put forward names to the met office, but they also use names from relevant people:

See here, from abut 12:20 onwards if you don't want the other stuff;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HU2dN8Myh4&t=838s

Agnes	25 September 2023	27 - 28 September 2023
Babet	16 October 2023	18 - 21 October 2023
Ciarán	29 October 2023
Debi
Elin
Fergus
Gerrit
Henk
Isha
Jocelyn
Kathleen
Lilian
Minnie
Nicholas
Olga
Piet
Regina
Stuart
Tamiko
Vincent
Walid

"Storm Minnie" seems a bit of a hostage to fortune selection

swordfish

A few winters back we came face to face with the beast from the east. Yet to be confronted by the pest from the west though.

I see it's bad in Jersey today where if you're out on the roads it might be best to pull over.

Captain Peacock

My Rottweiler's name is Storm, could name a storm Rottweiler which would be a bad'un.
Dread to think what Storm XL Bully would be like !

Stig

I'm looking forward to Storm Thorgerson. There's gonna be some beautiful rainbows with that one.

 

T_C_E

The oldest storm on record is “Storm @Redmidland” originated in the late 1800s   after lot noise it eventually fizzles to nothing more than a waft of nonsense. 

Chizz

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

MrOneLung

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

lolwray

Storm Roland has a ring to it

se9addick

Didn’t realise we share storm names Ireland and Netherlands, Charlton Life is full of great (but useless) information! 

Rob7Lee

se9addick said:

Didn’t realise we share storm names Ireland and Netherlands, Charlton Life is full of great (but useless) information! 

Sadly It's the sort of information I hold, but then I do buy reinsurance for UK insurers so sort of have to know such useless information!

cafcfan

We should name our own storms.  Stuff the Irish versions. I am surprised The Pub Landlord has not done a number on it:  Beautiful British Names for Beautiful British Storms.

Wheresmeticket?

thai malaysia addick said:

I think they should be named after Charlton players. Storm Kishishev and Storm Humphrey have a certain ring to them.

"Storm Church":  A pleasant gentle westerly breeze bringing a very light drizzle.

Chizz

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could be seen as a provocative and impactful method to raise public awareness about the connection between climate change, extreme weather events, and the fossil fuel industry. While this approach has its limitations, it offers several potential benefits:

1. Public Awareness: Associating storms with fossil fuel companies would grab attention, prompting conversations about climate change and the role of these industries in exacerbating it. It could serve as a catalyst for more people to engage in discussions and take action. 

2. Accountability: Naming storms after companies responsible for significant carbon emissions can hold them accountable in the public eye. This may pressure these corporations to adopt more sustainable practices or invest in clean energy technologies.

3. Messaging Clarity: Such naming can provide a straightforward and memorable way to convey the message that climate change is a real and urgent threat, directly tied to the actions of certain industries. 

4. Political Pressure: A public outcry and demand for change may influence governments to adopt stricter environmental regulations and incentivise the transition to renewable energy sources.

5. Mobilising Activism: Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could energise climate activists and grassroots movements, potentially leading to more significant climate action and awareness campaigns. 

In short, it would be a cost-free method of engaging the kinds of public debate that organisations like Stop Oil want to stimulate, but without the concomitant public disruption their usual methods create. 

AddicksAddict

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could be seen as a provocative and impactful method to raise public awareness about the connection between climate change, extreme weather events, and the fossil fuel industry. While this approach has its limitations, it offers several potential benefits:

1. Public Awareness: Associating storms with fossil fuel companies would grab attention, prompting conversations about climate change and the role of these industries in exacerbating it. It could serve as a catalyst for more people to engage in discussions and take action. 

2. Accountability: Naming storms after companies responsible for significant carbon emissions can hold them accountable in the public eye. This may pressure these corporations to adopt more sustainable practices or invest in clean energy technologies.

3. Messaging Clarity: Such naming can provide a straightforward and memorable way to convey the message that climate change is a real and urgent threat, directly tied to the actions of certain industries. 

4. Political Pressure: A public outcry and demand for change may influence governments to adopt stricter environmental regulations and incentivise the transition to renewable energy sources.

5. Mobilising Activism: Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could energise climate activists and grassroots movements, potentially leading to more significant climate action and awareness campaigns. 

In short, it would be a cost-free method of engaging the kinds of public debate that organisations like Stop Oil want to stimulate, but without the concomitant public disruption their usual methods create. 

Well said. However, I think MOL was being purposely confrontational rather than making a genuine request for clarification. 

JohnnyJoeyDeeDee

Wheresmeticket? said:

thai malaysia addick said:

I think they should be named after Charlton players. Storm Kishishev and Storm Humphrey have a certain ring to them.

"Storm Church":  A pleasant gentle westerly breeze bringing a very light drizzle.

Storm Lyle. Fails to arrive when expected

MrOneLung

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could be seen as a provocative and impactful method to raise public awareness about the connection between climate change, extreme weather events, and the fossil fuel industry. While this approach has its limitations, it offers several potential benefits:

1. Public Awareness: Associating storms with fossil fuel companies would grab attention, prompting conversations about climate change and the role of these industries in exacerbating it. It could serve as a catalyst for more people to engage in discussions and take action. 

2. Accountability: Naming storms after companies responsible for significant carbon emissions can hold them accountable in the public eye. This may pressure these corporations to adopt more sustainable practices or invest in clean energy technologies.

3. Messaging Clarity: Such naming can provide a straightforward and memorable way to convey the message that climate change is a real and urgent threat, directly tied to the actions of certain industries. 

4. Political Pressure: A public outcry and demand for change may influence governments to adopt stricter environmental regulations and incentivise the transition to renewable energy sources.

5. Mobilising Activism: Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could energise climate activists and grassroots movements, potentially leading to more significant climate action and awareness campaigns. 

In short, it would be a cost-free method of engaging the kinds of public debate that organisations like Stop Oil want to stimulate, but without the concomitant public disruption their usual methods create. 

And free publicity to the organisation as well 

Chizz

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could be seen as a provocative and impactful method to raise public awareness about the connection between climate change, extreme weather events, and the fossil fuel industry. While this approach has its limitations, it offers several potential benefits:

1. Public Awareness: Associating storms with fossil fuel companies would grab attention, prompting conversations about climate change and the role of these industries in exacerbating it. It could serve as a catalyst for more people to engage in discussions and take action. 

2. Accountability: Naming storms after companies responsible for significant carbon emissions can hold them accountable in the public eye. This may pressure these corporations to adopt more sustainable practices or invest in clean energy technologies.

3. Messaging Clarity: Such naming can provide a straightforward and memorable way to convey the message that climate change is a real and urgent threat, directly tied to the actions of certain industries. 

4. Political Pressure: A public outcry and demand for change may influence governments to adopt stricter environmental regulations and incentivise the transition to renewable energy sources.

5. Mobilising Activism: Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could energise climate activists and grassroots movements, potentially leading to more significant climate action and awareness campaigns. 

In short, it would be a cost-free method of engaging the kinds of public debate that organisations like Stop Oil want to stimulate, but without the concomitant public disruption their usual methods create. 

And free publicity to the organisation as well 

Yes! Who, within the marketing department at Esso wouldn't want to see Daily Mail headlines like ESSO CAUSES CATASTROPHE? Or ESSO COSTS LIVES?

Stig

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

MrOneLung said:

Chizz said:

Storms - and other extreme weather phenomena - should be named after fossil fuel companies

Why? 

Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could be seen as a provocative and impactful method to raise public awareness about the connection between climate change, extreme weather events, and the fossil fuel industry. While this approach has its limitations, it offers several potential benefits:

1. Public Awareness: Associating storms with fossil fuel companies would grab attention, prompting conversations about climate change and the role of these industries in exacerbating it. It could serve as a catalyst for more people to engage in discussions and take action. 

2. Accountability: Naming storms after companies responsible for significant carbon emissions can hold them accountable in the public eye. This may pressure these corporations to adopt more sustainable practices or invest in clean energy technologies.

3. Messaging Clarity: Such naming can provide a straightforward and memorable way to convey the message that climate change is a real and urgent threat, directly tied to the actions of certain industries. 

4. Political Pressure: A public outcry and demand for change may influence governments to adopt stricter environmental regulations and incentivise the transition to renewable energy sources.

5. Mobilising Activism: Naming storms after fossil fuel companies could energise climate activists and grassroots movements, potentially leading to more significant climate action and awareness campaigns. 

In short, it would be a cost-free method of engaging the kinds of public debate that organisations like Stop Oil want to stimulate, but without the concomitant public disruption their usual methods create. 

And free publicity to the organisation as well 

Yes! Who, within the marketing department at Esso wouldn't want to see Daily Mail headlines like ESSO CAUSES CATASTROPHE? Or ESSO COSTS LIVES?

It makes me sad thinking about their destruction. ESSO BLUE. Boom boom.

sam3110

Which fossil fuel companies were responsible for storms in the Medieval and Tudor times, remind me?

"Climate change/global warming" and "extreme weather conditions" are not mutually inclusive, one may affect the other slightly, but we've had these so-called storms on Earth for literally millions of years. I say so-called because 30mph winds and heavy rain, was known as November when I was younger

And before anyone jumps on and tries to claim I'm against the notion that climate change is happening, I'm not, and that fossil fuel companies aren't mainly to blame, they are, but this isn't the stick to beat them with

swordfish

sam3110 said:

Which fossil fuel companies were responsible for storms in the Medieval and Tudor times, remind me?

"Climate change/global warming" and "extreme weather conditions" are not mutually inclusive, one may affect the other slightly, but we've had these so-called storms on Earth for literally millions of years. I say so-called because 30mph winds and heavy rain, was known as November when I was younger

And before anyone jumps on and tries to claim I'm against the notion that climate change is happening, I'm not, and that fossil fuel companies aren't mainly to blame, they are, but this isn't the stick to beat them with 

So what is in your view?

You say  "one may affect the other slightly." Is that backed by scientific findings. Can you offer up a source of your information.

Here's something interesting on the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/

Sillybilly

You know when you start a thread as a bit of fun……….,,,I’m not going to bother in future. 

swordfish

Nothing to see here.