I’ve been open to critiquing the latest and greatest terminology.
And, I think there’s a very good reason why.
Basically,
simple answer delivered with one word, clickbait.
Let’s
look toward the weather for the general ideas. The term is bomb
cyclone. Apparently, it makes it’s first appearance around 1980
in a published research paper. That acknowledged, giving it more
than four decades of existence, I had never heard it until the
past five to ten years (at most).
But
the word bomb. The word cyclone. Combined. Bomb cyclone. It has
all the thrills and chills of a phrase like thunder snow. Right?
My
words: “Hey Syracuse, get ready and hunker down because tomorrow
we expect a bomb cyclone to hit the area.” Makes you want to know
more. Makes you want to tune in at 11 for the latest and download
the app for updates.
I’ll
allow that some of it is our limited attention span as a whole
these days. People as a group, easily led, easily fooled, easily
manipulated. Crowd mentality. If you don’t get ahold of us in
under five seconds with something so significant and catchy that
we can’t look away, chances are good we not only will look away
we also won’t look back. None of us will look back. However, something
that catches eyes and gets people talking? Well, my words: “A
bomb cyclone is heading toward Fargo.” I do believe most people
will wait the entire commercial break to get the bomb cyclone
update on the other side.
How
important are those eyes of ours focusing on the weather? Important
enough that many stations are now naming winter storms. No single
entity involved to keep things organized for us. Two televisions
news broadcasts can have two different names, with a third name
coming from a newspaper or a radio station. Obviously—sarcasm
alert in full force—no chance of mass confusion there.
It
is with that in place that I direct your attention someplace new.
I’ve been hearing in recent days about an atmospheric river.
As
an immediate reaction, I placed it off to the side in a way that
would suggest I didn’t see a use for it and really wasn’t too
concerned. Tell me a blizzard or a nor’easter is on the way, or
that a tornado warning is in place, or so on, and I get it. LOTS
of snow, extremely dangerous to drive, stay off the road and in
the house and clean up once it passes. I don’t know if calling
it a bomb cyclone matters when common sense is available to scream
inside your head to pay attention.
So,
if bomb cyclones leave me rolling my eyes, why did I shift my
perspective? Why do I now feel like I care about an atmospheric
river?
Turns
out, there’s a good reason.
The
phrase appears to be credited to about 1994. The idea is essentially
based on bands of moisture and water vapor and such in the atmosphere.
Concentrated areas of intense moisture, more long than wide (as
if a band or corridor), moving as if flowing along as a current
in the air. An atmospheric river indeed.
When
you see some of the samples that exist, the appearances seem to
be something previously unrecognized (or at least not widely studied
or considered). In the current world of climate change, they also
could take on significant importance. In fact, there are some
studies being conducted with data showing that even over just
thirty years there are some interesting patterns and changes taking
place in the atmospheric rivers that occur.
This
has the possibility of being more than clickbait. A lot more.
It doesn’t appear to be about catchy nicknames with no true depth.
Doesn’t appear to be about ratings and dwindling attention spans.
This might just be real science, as in real and new discoveries.
A
bomb cyclone? No such comparison. It’s a blizzard. Naming storms?
The storm will arrive with or without a name.
For
many, this seems to be a path we’ve recently trod on multiple
times. In reality, the blurb intended to get you to read misses
out on the real story. Seems a shame when the interesting stories
don’t get the respect and attention they deserve. Pay attention
the next time you hear about an atmospheric river, and try to
learn a bit more.