While only certain extreme weather events are assigned names, many others go without this distinction.

Would there be advantages to naming every significant weather occurrence?

For example, bushfires are often named informally, drawing from dates or locations like Black Saturday or the Black Summer fires. In contrast, smaller bushfires tend to remain nameless.

Other severe weather phenomena, such as east coast lows, significant floods, and heatwaves, typically go unnamed, even though they can inflict similar levels of damage.

The rationale for naming cyclones is straightforward: using short and unique names minimizes confusion when multiple storms happen simultaneously, facilitating clearer communication among agencies, the media, and the public.

Research has demonstrated, though only about a third of participants remembered the name, that naming heatwaves could enhance public awareness and encourage protective actions.

The same logic underpins naming cyclones: short, distinctive names reduce confusion when multiple storms occur at once and improve communication across agencies, media and the public.

Although only about a third of participants recalled the name, the research provided the first real-world evidence that naming heatwaves can improve public awareness and protective behaviour.

While acknowledging heat poses a major and growing public health threat, the organisation concluded naming individual heatwaves could shift focus away from critical messaging — namely, who is at risk and what actions to take.

Should Australia follow?

For these, naming could meaningfully improve communication, recognition, and preparedness without the same drawbacks the WMO highlights for heatwaves.

Steve Turton is an adjunct professor of environmental geography at CQUniversity Australia