The weather has topped the online newspapers in recent weeks. Has the weather become more extreme or is the media shouting louder? Ole Jacob Madsen is a professor of psychology, and believes he sees a trend. – When the weather becomes more unstable and extreme as a result of climate change, it’s not surprising if it leads to more notices. But Madsen is critical of how weather events are presented in the media. CRITICAL: Ole Jacob Madsen is a trained psychologist and philosopher, and is professor of culture and social psychology at the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo. Photo: Tor Stenersen – I call it the sub-cooled rain industry, where the media with belligerent types warn against difficult driving conditions without specifying where. Often it is quite local, the problems can be linked to a valley area, says Madsen to news. Gets an answer He believes the media plays on fear. – Readers want to be on the safe side, you have to read to stay informed. But often they are clickbaits to generate more hits. There is a core of truth, but often it is not relevant to you, says Madsen. – It’s useful information if you’re going out for a drive, isn’t it? – Yes, it is. It is part of a new digital news everyday, with updates 24/7. But there is also a cynicism in the media and part of their business model. They have to shout louder to reach the noise, and can continuously change the title and preamble to catch the readers, he replies. ANSWERS: Reidun Kjelling Nybø, secretary general of the Norwegian Editors’ Association. Photo: Hans Trygve Holm Reidun Kjelling Nybø, secretary general of the Norwegian Editors’ Association, is dismayed by the allegation of clickbaits. – I have full confidence that the public is able to understand the weather situation where they are and assess the message from various sources, including in editor-controlled media. When the editor-controlled media promote this content, it is primarily because the media’s main task is to tell about what is happening in society. She believes that it is natural that interest and media coverage have increased in line with more extreme weather, more danger warnings, better opportunities to predict the weather and more detailed weather and climate statistics. – I never cease to be surprised by everyone who throws around the term clickbaits as if it were something negative that many people want to read, listen to or see things in editor-controlled media. The news media would not have done their job if they had not reported closely on when the weather situation in Norway is “against normal”, replies Nybø. Several things affect the number of warnings Last year, the Meteorological Institute sent out 1,014 danger warnings for land areas. This is the highest number of such notifications in recent years. But the system of yellow, orange and red danger warnings only started in the summer of 2018, so the basis for comparison is thin. This means the danger warnings More warnings do not necessarily mean more storms either, explains the Meteorological Institute. While previously a danger warning was sent out for a larger geographical area, this can now be more geographically precise. – Then what used to be one warning for a large area can now become two or three warnings for more limited geographical areas. It gives more alerts in total, but will hopefully be perceived as more relevant for the users of the alerts, explains Anders Doksæter Sivle, senior researcher and head of the Yr work at the Meteorological Institute. He also lists a number of other reasons that affect the statistics. This affects the number of danger alerts From the figures, we see that the number of danger alerts for countries sent by MET varies slightly from year to year, but that it is mostly around or just under 1,000. It is not straightforward to compare from year to year , and for several reasons it is not very meaningful: An increase in the number of warnings from one year to another may be due to more storms, but it may also be due to a development due to changes in methodology. For example, when we are able to notify more geographically precisely; then what used to be one warning for a large area can now become two or three warnings for more limited geographical areas. It gives more alerts in total, but will hopefully be perceived as more relevant to the users of the alerts. Other times we make changes to which phenomena we send alerts for, such as when we divided “difficult driving conditions” into the alerts “snow”, “ice”, and “snowflake”, which can have more and other consequences than just difficult driving conditions. Or when we introduced a new lightning warning. Such choices can also give more danger warnings overall, but will hopefully also be perceived as more precise for the users. The number of danger warnings can also be related to the types of weather that dominate a given year. For example, you can imagine that if it’s a dry summer, you can get danger warnings about the risk of forest fires. If they cover a large area, such as Western Norway or Eastern Norway, and apply for many days at a time, it will not necessarily give such a large number of alerts. A wet summer, where many of the days come with torrential rain and lightning, can lead to warnings that have a shorter duration and are for several smaller areas. It can provide a greater number of danger warnings. This applies to several phenomena, perhaps a wind warning is sent for a larger area over a longer period of time than a warning about high water levels along the coast, where the top of the water level moves in a wave along the coast, and you have to take account of tides. In the period 2019-2023, we have sent 4,354 danger alerts for countries. Of these, 40% have been for the winter phenomena of snow, ice and sleet. These are mostly yellow level warnings (with some exceptions for orange snow warnings). For the summer phenomena of rain, torrential rain and lightning, we have sent 20% of the notifications. In return, there are somewhat more orange and red alerts. This is followed by gusts of wind with 16% of the warnings and forest fire danger with 13%. Here, too, there are somewhat more orange and red alerts. Finally, there are 12% with the other warning types, icing on ships, polar low pressure, and water level along the coast. Furthermore, an increase in the number of danger alerts may also be due to climate change having an impact (e.g. more rainfall), so that over time there will be more danger alerts. Then we probably need to look at a longer time scale than year to year, or the five years for which we now have figures. A challenge in that context is that when we switched to yellow, orange and red alerts, we also started with what we call consequence-based danger alerts. This means that we don’t just warn when the wind or precipitation exceeds a certain threshold value (e.g. 30 m/s wind, or 30 mm of rain in one hour). We must also consider the consequences of the weather for society and the citizens. A very heavy rainstorm that hits a wooded area where no one lives or travels may not have any consequences. If the same rainstorm hits a place with many people and a lot of infrastructure, it can have major consequences, and should be notified. The season can also play a role in the consequences. This makes the assessments more demanding, but leads to more useful alerts. The fact that we give warnings based on consequences also means that climate change does not necessarily have to lead to an increase in the number of hazard warnings. If society manages to adapt to a new climate, then we can (and should) increase the criteria before sending a danger warning, and the result will be roughly the same perceived consequence for a given warning. For example, if we take measures along the coast and in the harbors so that they can withstand a higher water level before damage occurs, then we can change our criteria before sending out a warning about high water levels. The result will then be approximately the same number of notifications. But it is not sufficient to say that if over time we see an increase in the number of danger warnings, and we observe that the climate is changing, it is because we have not adapted (quickly) enough. There may also be other explanations, as mentioned further up. Therefore; more extremes in the climate context do not have to mean more (consequence-based) extreme weather warnings. But it can, if society does not adapt. In other words, there are complex and several reasons why the number of danger warnings varies somewhat from year to year. In general, we can say that there is typically one red event per year (named extreme weather), one orange event per month, and yellow warnings can be seen somewhere in Norway every day. In addition to the warnings from MET, NVE also sends out danger warnings (for floods and landslides). Source: Anders Doksæter Sivle, senior researcher and head of the Yr work at the Meteorological Institute. The state meteorologist thinks even that may seem exaggerated. Large amounts of snow have fallen in Southern Norway, while it has been somewhat calmer in Oslo. Nevertheless, on 29 December there were yellow danger warnings for a number of days. A LOT OF YELLOW: This is the YR warning for the city of Oslo on 29 December and the days ahead. Photo: YR While meteorologists used to forecast the weather in isolation, they now look more closely at people’s behaviour. This means, for example, that the first snowfall is always marked with a warning. – We send out many more danger warnings now than before. More attention is paid to safety, says state meteorologist Terje Alsvik Walløe. CHANGE: State meteorologist Terje Alsvik Walløe says a lot has changed since he started. Photo: Tore Meek / NTB – Snowfall is often reported, and I myself think that it can seem exaggerated when there is five centimeters of snow. At the same time, not much is needed, we see, among other things, that E6 was closed after a trailer came across. In terms of experience, the threshold for snow is low, he says. – Is there always a yellow warning when it snows? – Almost. There are usually more traffic accidents. But when I started, we almost never sent out hazard warnings. – Does it say something about society? – Yes, I mean that. Before we drove without a seat belt and rode without a helmet. It is a major societal change, Walløe believes. Programmed to react to dangers Ole Jacob Madsen says that sociologists have been talking for several years about an increased culture of fear in modern society, for crime, terror and disasters, which the 24/7 digital media development only reinforces. – During the pandemic, we used the term “doomsdayscrolling”, a type of addiction to negative/dangerous news. It’s like sticking your tongue on a battery, it hurts and feels good at the same time. One might think “here I sit safely in my living room, while it is dangerous out there”. I would like to believe that the pandemic has reinforced some tendencies related to preparedness, says Madsen and continues: – From an evolutionary psychological point of view, man has benefited from being aware of dangers. Those who were not, simply had less chance of survival. In this sense, humans are programmed to react to dangers in their immediate surroundings. news clarifies: The interview with Ole Jacob Madsen was done before the cold wave and the heavy snowfall in Southern Norway. Changes have been made to the article on Friday 5 January.
ttn-69
1,014 danger alerts last year – psychology professor critical of the media’s handling – news Norway – Overview of news from various parts of the country
