Australia's climate is experiencing changes attributed to rising global greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to an observed increase in extreme weather phenomena, including tropical cyclones, east coast low-pressure systems, flash floods, droughts, bushfires, severe storms, and both land and marine heatwaves, as indicated by the National Climate Risk Assessment. These events can strain emergency and medical services, damage infrastructure, and result in fatalities and illnesses. Currently, only some extreme weather events receive formal names.
Current Naming Practices in Australia
In Australia, tropical cyclones are the only severe weather events that receive formal names. These are assigned alphabetically, with some names omitted based on specific protocols, such as the replacement of "Anthony" with Cyclone Alfred in March 2025. Other weather events are managed differently. Large bushfires are often informally named based on dates or locations, such as Black Saturday or the Black Summer fires, while smaller bushfires typically remain unnamed.
Globally, formal naming of tropical weather systems expanded after 1950. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) assumed responsibility for coordinating tropical cyclone names worldwide in 1979. Australia aligns with this framework, with the Bureau of Meteorology naming cyclones in Australian waters using regional lists coordinated by the WMO. Names associated with particularly destructive events, such as Cyclone Tracy, Yasi, and Debbie, are retired from use. In contrast, other extreme weather events, including east coast lows, major floods, and heatwaves, currently remain unnamed despite often causing comparable damage.
Research on the Impact of Naming Weather Events
Research suggests that naming weather events can enhance public recall of warnings, facilitate information sharing, and improve preparedness. A study by the United Kingdom's Met Office indicated that named storms generated increased media engagement and public awareness, leading to quicker actions such as property securing, travel cancellations, and adherence to official advice. Events identified by technical labels, such as "intense low-pressure system" or "prolonged heat event," may not achieve the same level of public attention. The rationale for naming cyclones includes reducing confusion when multiple storms occur simultaneously and improving communication among agencies, media, and the public.
Despite their potential impact, many significant Australian weather events, particularly heatwaves, are not named. East coast lows, which can be destructive, also remain unnamed. A 2024 study in Seville on its first named heatwave, Zoe, reported that individuals who recalled the name were more inclined to adopt safety precautions and expressed higher confidence in the local government's response. While only approximately one-third of participants recalled the name, this research offered evidence that naming heatwaves might enhance public awareness and protective behaviors.
However, not all research supports naming heatwaves. A 2025 study by UK researchers found no clear evidence that naming heatwaves increased public concern or protective behavior. Controlled experiments involving participants in England and Italy demonstrated that naming a heatwave, even with labels designed to evoke emotion, had minimal effect on perceived risk or planned responses.
The WMO has also expressed reservations regarding heatwave naming, citing potential misdirection of attention. While acknowledging the growing public health threat posed by heat, the WMO concluded that naming individual heatwaves could divert focus from essential messaging regarding at-risk populations and necessary actions.
Considerations for Australia
Australia experiences a diverse range of weather events, which presents specific communication challenges. Some extreme weather events, such as east coast lows and major flood systems, are discrete and trackable, making them more comparable to tropical cyclones than to diffuse hazards like heatwaves. Historically, east coast lows have caused significant disruption and loss of life, exemplified by the 1974 storm that beached the MV Sygna and the 2007 storm that ran the Pasha Bulker aground. For these specific event types, naming could potentially enhance communication, recognition, and preparedness without the same concerns highlighted by the WMO for heatwaves.
Any expansion of naming practices would require careful design. Names carry social and cultural significance, and inadequately designed systems could lead to confusion or unintended negative associations. An evidence-based approach, clearly linked to public safety outcomes, would be essential for any expanded naming system.
A multidisciplinary review, potentially led by the Bureau of Meteorology and involving emergency services, public health experts, social scientists, and communications specialists, could assess the potential benefits. Such a review would evaluate whether naming additional extreme weather events would improve warning effectiveness as climate change continues to influence the frequency and intensity of severe weather.