So I read the @capitalweather piece about naming heat waves and I was pretty blunt that this is once again a stupid idea.

The point of naming tropical low-pressure systems is so these storms, especially when there are multiple ones, are easily tracked for marine and coastal communication. The naming is based on the strength of the storm and nothing more.

Unlike other events, it doesn't matter if the storm impacts a large population center or if the climatology would suggest the storm is a normal occurrence or not.

When a tropical low-pressure system impacts a region, the potential impacts are relatively uniform. This is an important factor to consider when discussing naming other weather events.

In terms of a winter storm, for one region of the country 3" of snow is a yawn. No big deal. In other parts though, 3" may lead to days of delays and shutting down a city.

So is the winter storm only named if the same system that produce 3" in North Dakota does the same amount in Atlanta, GA? The strength is the same. The result is the same, but it is given a name because the impacts are different.

In another case you have a major winter storm in the northern Rockies with feet of snow, but no name. Why? Population size and that's it. It is still a dangerous storm but there is no pop for advertisement and that is why some entities are naming storms.

Naming winter storms isn't about communication, it's about getting eye balls for that click or turning on the TV for that commercial. That is the only reason.

Now, let's talk about heatwaves. Yes, heatwaves are dangerous and can be deadly. No one is denying that. However, does one need to name a heatwave to communicate this threat? I think not.

First of all, there is again the climatology aspect. For example, the general definition of a heatwave is 90 degrees or higher for three straight days. Now, in Oklahoma right now, we have 15 days of 90+ temperatures which are above normal, slightly above normal.

For Oklahomans, this weather pattern is not out of the ordinary. It's expected. Giving a name to this weather event would be like giving a name to each individual tornado. It would be an excessive process that would lose all meaning.

So do you only do naming for regions that have rare heatwaves? Do you only name them for high population areas? And then do you also do the same for cold outbreaks, which might be redundant again in Fargo, ND and stand out significantly in Atlanta, GA.

My point here is you have no standard to justify naming these events. If you can't communicate the significance of a meteorological event, maybe the issue is you as a communicator rather than the event.

Now with that, you'll always have some people that just won't take any storm or significant temperature anomaly seriously.

You as a meteorologist cannot hold everyone's hand. You share the information and explain the impacts, from there it is the responsibility of the individual to prepare accordingly.

So, I will again request and hope that we stop this idiotic process of naming winter storms and certainly not extend the practice to extreme temperature events. Learn how to communicate these threats better and stop making idiotic lists of names.