Louis Bodin is an engineer-meteorologist and presenter on RTL and TF1 for around thirty years. Passionate about sailing and aviation, he is the author of “When the weather influences history” (Albin Michel, 2015) and “We are all weather-sensitive” (2019).
To discover
Crosswords, Sudoku, 7 Letters... Keep your mind alert with Le Figaro Games
This interview is taken from the podcast
Le moment des mots
.
LE FIGARO. - When you say that it is "hot", that the temperatures "are low"... Is there a standard from which you base your speech?
Louis BODIN. -
It is indeed very important in meteorology.
We are working on a sample of 30 years old.
That is to say, when we want to compare, to make statistics, to say that it is
“warmer”
,
“colder”
, we take the last 30 years.
At the moment, we are working on a range, a reference period which goes from the 1990s to the 2020s. A friend had also told me to never talk about
"normal"
temperatures because, indeed, the normality of yesterday is not today and even less tomorrow.
I prefer to talk about “average”
temperatures
.
These averages are elements of comparison which we use a lot to show the warming on the surface of the globe.
Likewise, it was necessary to define criteria to speak of “heat”, “high heat”: from 25 degrees, 30 degrees.
And then, when temperatures cross these thresholds for three days, then beyond three days, we can speak of a period of “heatwave” or on the contrary, when we are in very low temperatures, of “very cold”.
Obviously, as these phenomena continue or intensify, vigilance can be used to warn the population and put them on their guard.
This also allows the State to put in place all the necessary services to help protect citizens.
These temperature thresholds therefore have a very important role.
This is also true for rain, with the warning thresholds for the risk of flooding, very intense rain through storms, what we call Mediterranean or Cévennes episodes where in a few minutes, we can have torrential rains, with devastating and dangerous effects.
Meteorology words can be subject to various interpretations...
The word I prefer is
“anticyclone”
.
This word means everything and nothing.
“The anticyclone”
, in the imagination, means
“good weather”
: no more rain but sunshine.
Except that the anticyclone can exist in many places in the world at the same time.
And then sometimes, in winter, like in recent weeks when the anticyclone has firmly established itself over France.
This is because it has another role, by trapping some of the humidity below it.
Which means that above our heads we have fog, clouds... I find it nice to be able to talk about this word with several meanings.
Which clearly shows the complexity of meteorology and the relativity, depending on how we can take the words, of meteorological phenomena.
It’s exactly the same thing for the word “thinning.”
When you're an optimist and you hear clearing up, you tell yourself there's going to be some sunshine.
When you are pessimistic, there are going to be clouds.
Both won't be entirely wrong.
But then I tell myself that I ultimately haven't described the weather forecasts well because everyone will have a different interpretation.
This clearly shows how difficult it is to express what the weather is going to be like or what the weather is like.
It’s such a universal subject that finding the right vocabulary, the one that will express it most accurately, is a constant struggle.
This is one of my frustrations, very often.
I can make a very good forecast, and then I realize that I have placed too much emphasis on this or that parameter and that I have therefore distorted this forecast.
There is nothing more universal than the weather. “We are all weather-sensitive,” you say...
We forget it too often, but even as we speak, we are surrounded by air.
And the small particles of this air that surround us have a certain pressure, a temperature, a certain humidity level.
Our body experiences this environment from our birth until our death.
Some don't care at all, others are very sensitive to a difference of just a few degrees.
We cope with it more or less easily, but we are all faced with it.
Meteorology has had an impact on many historical events.
Consider the Battle of Agincourt at the end of the Hundred Years' War.
That day, the English who were rather retreating and returning to England were caught by the French chivalry at Azincourt, an incredible plain.
The French knights are much more numerous than them, heavily armed, but get bogged down all alone before even fighting.
The English archers, much lighter and more mobile, had the advantage.
If the ground had been completely dry, it is clear that the outcome of the battle would have been different.
The French chivalry was decimated, all the officials and notables of the time therefore, which redistributed the organization and hierarchy in France.
There is also a lot of talk about “climate skeptics”. Skepticism is originally a critical attitude. Is this more a matter of distrust, or even denial?
All these postures exist.
There are those who actually do not want to change, out of fear or out of fear.
There are those who fight because they think that today we are exaggerating, that there may still be doubt.
It is true that when you read the IPCC curves carefully, there is always a small amount of uncertainty.
The IPCC is completely transparent in saying that we are not in 100% certainty, but in 90-95%.
We can trust it.
And in any case, whether it's +2° or +3°, we understood that if we didn't change, we were heading into a wall.
And then, there are all those who are in bad faith, who want to change, all those who do not believe in science... We are entering into something that precisely escapes pragmatism, common sense, science who does a decent job.
The IPCC, I remind you, is a group of researchers who work in all countries of the world on the problem of global warming, on climate change.
They meet regularly and produce summaries.
This is the sixth synthesis they are currently preparing.
We can give a certain amount of credence to these conclusions and that they are the basis of our work, of our thinking for tomorrow, seems to me to make good sense.