Here is my view, feel free to disagree. I think naming depressions is a bad idea for the following reasons

Confusion between storms of a tropical origin (including ex-hurricanes) and mid-latitude systems.

Risk of association of severe weather with 'storm' systems. The most severe weather that the UK gets can be completely disassociated with 'storms', including heavy lake effect snow in the winter, and thunderstorms in the summer (including the boscastle event).

Wind field distribution is highly asymmetrical, and as a result the strongest winds are not necessarily near the centre. In a tropical storm the closer the centre is to you, the worse the weather; in a mid-lat system is is not necessarily the case, in fact passing slightly to the north of the centre can potentially result in glorious sunshine and light winds.  

Rain distribuition is even more disconnected from the centre, in a tropical storm the centre passing over always means heavy rain whilst in a mid-latitude depression rain and cloud is associated with fronts. Let's say there is a 'storm' due to hit Scotland but a squally cold front brings torrential rain in the south; do we say the storm has hit the south because that is where the worst weather is, or hit the north despite being fine. Either way confusion is inevitable particularly since in extreme cases the centre could be 1000 miles away and we still get severe weather. 

Generally unnecessary: we already have a system of weather warnings (yellow, orange and red) which deals with all severe weather. Why complicate the matter by naming depressions?

How is this going to deal with secondary systems. In the winter a parent low can spawn a secondary low, and it tends to be the secondary low is far more violent than the primary; do both get names, does just the primary get a name, does just the secondary get a name?! 

I think you worry too much.

It certainly brought a lot more attention up here to the first one and as such more people were aware of it and took the necessary precautions. Whether the awareness would continue as naming becomes routine I don't know.

I agree Q. It's an ill-conceived Americanism that will only serve to further confuse the public.
Your point about daughter runners is particularly valid. Take the scenario where a parent low, otherwise unnamed because if falls below the naming criteria, spawns a rapidly deepening daughter low at short notice that goes on to deliver 80mph+ across a swathe of middle England real-estate. I can see the headlines now - 'Storm with no name causes havoc'.

I only hope this stupid idea is dropped as soon as possible.

And no Saint, I don't worry too much :)

I like it myself - it's going to be much more meaningful to say 'Do you remember Abigail in 2015?' rather than 'Didn't we have a gale from a depression which dipped to 960mb?'  Certainly for the public at large, even if there are weather fans in here with memories like elephants.

As for the problems with secondary lows, I'm content to wait and see, though I can see them being referred to as e.g. Abigail's daughter.

Agreed, I think names are a privilege that should only be bestowed upon tropical systems. I, however, do think that medicanes should be named. Are we going to name individual fronts aswell? 

Agree Dew. I don't think its done any harm. Even my wife asked if the squall last night was due to Abigail..she is normally clueless when it comes to weather. 

Agree wrt people worrying too much. 

Surely 'Abigail B' would be more suitable? If the diffluent exit region spawns a tertiary wave which sometimes happens then would it be 'Abigail C' or more accurately 'Abigail AB'.

I say stick to dates and not names. What's wrong with 'The Burns Day' storm? If a storm is that major it's remembered whether it has a name or not.

But the problem is in this current climate of criminal disinformation and misconception, adding names to maritime low pressure systems only adds another confusing veneer to be used and abused by the gutter press.

What next - sponsorship? Storm Tesco causes disruption?

I'm not going to say another word - there's more important things for me to allocate my dwindling brain to. But it is, in my opinion, stupid.

Facts and figures are not always remembered. A name is easier yo refer to and to recall to mind.

With my poor memory it helps to have named systems, though I do remember some of the bigger storms that were given names as such. I think it raises awareness which is a good thing. Be interesting to see what month they stop naming storms (i.e if we get a deep low during Spring to Summer - will it be named?).

I also don't think it helps that ex-Hurricane Kate is so close to our first named storm which may throw some confusion.

it engages the public. it works.

my staff were busy looking at the midday squall yesterday and thought it was abigail.  does it matter that it wasnt?

I agree it is a confusing idea and think it is more to do with reminding us that storms are getting windier perhaps. The tv was on the other day with the sound off when I saw a funny flabby shaped low with the new name. I thought that's an odd shaped hurricane before I twigged it was the new system for warning the public. An active cold front can cause havoc yet will not be named so I hope they drop the idea of naming depressions. The current low with copious rain has no name yet may cause more disruption than the first named one.

Nick

Can't say that I am a big fan of it myself, mainly for the reasons as already mentioned in here (media over sensationalising it, the general public confusing winter Atlantic systems for Caribbean hurricanes, etc). Speaking as an amateur forecaster running my own Facebook page, I think it's going to give me more of a headache than any benefits derived out of it.
  What happens when the main named system continue to hang over Iceland, out of harm's way, but it start spawning a train of secondary "runners" anyway? Those often cause more disruption than the main event and yet probably won't get named. I think it'll just muddy the waters further still.
  From what I've read so far, it is an experimental thing so I'll give it a chance and see if it does work. Never know, I might warm to it . . . eventually.
 

Totally agree with you!

I think you've contradicted your own argument.
The confusion over whether an active trough loosely associated with a named parent low should have the same name as said parent low is exactly what I predict.

No, I'm not a fan.

Case in point, 'storm' barney will be centred just north of shetland with the worst winds in the south of England.

This is just going to confuse the public, regardless of whether it is stipulated that the storm is north of shetland or in the south of England. 

I'm not a fan of this either (and you know, I generally take to all things gimmicky  ) but I think this does muddy the waters too much between tropical storms and mid-latitude depressions.

Leave named storms for the tropics. 

Not a fan myself. I heard far too many people talking about "Hurricane Abigail" last week. Had to bite my teeth and go along with it.

So what? It's a major storm which is going to affect virtually all of the UK. Though if named storms are going to follow each other at 3-day intervals, perhaps the criteria should be tighter.

But here's a thought. What about naming fogs? or freezes?

It certainly does make the general public more aware of the potential for bad weather - had someone ring me this afternoon to ask about Barney (at which point I hadnt seen anything to suggest any particularly bad weather - had to make a quick look to see what all the fuss was about!).   The downside is when the weather isnt actually that bad and folk go back to complacency.

I suppose it is an interesting experiment?