Sometimes you can be forgiven for grabbing the kids, tying down the dog, retreating to the basement (or digging a basement if you didn’t have one to retreat to), daubing “Survivors Inside” on your front door, then praying that you will, against all odds, survive The Weather.
Last week it was a Weather Bomb. The maps showed it as a howling mouth, tearing a hole through the sky over the Atlantic. Bearing down on us without mercy. God help us all.
Well, it was wild in the northwest mainly, and certainly gusty in other parts, but otherwise the Weather Bomb passed without being particularly noteworthy.
It rained. But it rains a lot. It was windy. But it’s December on an island on the edge of the Atlantic.
To most of us it was sort of Weathery but not particularly Bombish. Still, it was a bit of fun. A passing thrill. Maybe we’ll be a bit more sceptical next time. Not a bit of it.
On Tuesday, a national newspaper’s lead headline was this: “Freak ‘polar vortex’ threatens coldest winter in 50 years”. If you think that’s dramatic you should see it written in 50-point type. You’d have dived under your table.
It was, as you’d expect, an extrapolation of the worst possible outcome. “Forecasters warn heavy snow and icy roads could rival Big Freeze of 1963,” it added, using a plural, that common distraction in science misreporting.
It seemed to suggest there was a line-up of fretting meteorologists eager to alert the public. There wasn't. It's just one man (James Madden of a service called Exacta Weather), and even his quotes were couched in ifs, buts and maybes. But ifs, buts and maybes don't make good headlines.
Now, here’s the thing. It may be true. Or true enough. Models apparently suggest it could get cold after Christmas. Once-in-50-years cold? If certain things happen. But other factors would be needed. Maybe, it could . . .
Madden popped up in the papers in November warning of a possible snowmageddon in December. That big freeze hasn’t happened yet.
Madden is in the business of selling long-term weather forecasting, which is his right. It doesn’t mean that big claims by him, or anyone, have to go unchallenged.But big claims too often do. It goes across the media.
Weather watcher
The Irish Times has, in common with many outlets, given a large amount of coverage to the New Zealand "moon watcher" and almanac seller Ken Ring, whose website is called Predict Weather. Media shorthand describes him as the "weather guru".
Ring gives good forecast – and is general enough to sound right. But, among many criticisms of his methods by scientists, Met Éireann said in October that it "wouldn't be endorsing his predictions".
The promise of apocalyptic weather is not an Irish or British phenomenon. A study of US television news recently tracked a quadrupling of weather and natural-disaster stories since the 1990s.
There, and here, we now hear concocted terms, such as “superstorm”, that have no real definition but sound exciting; storms given names by whoever comes up with a decent one first.
You don’t get much of a headline out of a story that says “weather to remain largely within range of average on the whole, with occasional swings to more extreme spells”. You don’t get much fun from more measured forecasting services, such as Irish Weather Online, which plays down extremes, talks in possibilities and percentages, and warns against getting carried away.
Quote from the Met
Met Éireann will be quoted occasionally in response to the wilder stories, and the meteorologists always sound like they’re responding through gossamer-thin patience. Their quotes tend to be down the story, away from the headline.
Ironically, it’s when the weather does get a bit extreme that Met Éireann is pushed front and centre. It featured in the reporting about the Weather Bomb, and had issued a Status Orange warning. But that status is the second level of three, and suggests that we “be prepared”. It didn’t suggest holding on for dear life.
Such unthinking coverage of weather stories reflects a wider sloppiness in reporting of science. An extreme possibility is dragged into the mainstream and treated as fact. A lone voice is given undue prominence. The motivation behind a claim is ignored. Balance isn’t sought. Calm voices are buried.
If a theory turns out to be wrong, or a prediction doesn’t pan out, then no harm done. If a headline is even half right once, it seems enough to overlook a dozen false alarms.
shegarty@irishtimes.com @shanehegarty