Jump to content

Talk:2003 Pacific typhoon season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2003 Pacific typhoon season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star2003 Pacific typhoon season is the main article in the 2003 Pacific typhoon season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article


Super Typhoon or Typhoon

[edit]

When adding articles, I've been mentioning tropical depression, tropical storm, and typhoon status being achieved when JMA made the upgrade. The problem is what to do for super typhoons. Technically, since JMA uses a 10-minute average sustained wind, their maximum sustained winds are a bit lower than the 1-minute average used by JTWC. I've been using JTWC for super typhoon status similar to what I've seen used in other articles...but am beginning to question this philosophy since they are not a regional warning center like Japan. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware the reasoning for the JTWC was when these articles were being created that was the source that was used. I don't think it is correct, but there's inertia against changing things now. As we have become more aware we have realised the problems this causes, for instance with Cyclone Monica the JTWC data didn't merely disagree with the BoM on "sustained winds" but on central pressure too.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We deal with this problem in the NWS as well. Technically, we have to use the JMA information when available since they're a designated tropical cyclone warning center and JTWC is not. JTWC is just for U.S. Navy use and no longer has the ability to name tropical cyclones as of a few years ago, so I doubt they can be realistically used. Thegreatdr 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'm less clear on is what happens with older storms, Typhoon Tip for example. There are subtle differences between the JTWC and JMA best tracks, but when Tip occured the JTWC was the responsible body. Is the JMA best track the official one? I have a feeling the only correct solution is to not use JTWC data at all if JMA data exists for recent seasons, and depending on the official status in the past the same story. (Ditto the Southern Hemisphere...)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense, for the most part. Realize that JMA uses a 10-minute wind average though, so their wind speeds appear lower, even if their 10 minute sustained wind value is equivalent to the JWTC/NWS 1-minute maximum sustained wind. They will rarely, if ever, appear to "reach" the magic 130 kt maximum sustained wind that is used to declare a system a "super typhoon." The conversion from 10 min to 1 min winds is a 14% increase. Thegreatdr 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That windspeed reference is very useful IMO. Actually what I was referring to is more that they disagree on pressure. For example at Typhoon Imbudo was assessed to be at 945 by the JMA and 910 by the JTWC at 2003-07-21 0000 UTC. These sorts of variations are typical from what I see and there is also subtle differences in the location. The question is for an older season, say 1980, is the JMA best track or the JTWC best track that is authoritative?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For now, we're probably safe with JTWC before 1999. There is a movement to do a Pacific tropical cyclone reanalysis, but it will require significant coordination between ALL the western Pacific warning centers. It will take years to accomplish, perhaps a decade. We're closing in on 10 years of the Atlantic Basin's reanalysis. Thegreatdr 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season damages

[edit]

Typhoon Committee season summary - it has a damage/deaths breakdown.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class

[edit]

This should be a start class. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be an FA class. However at this time it is clearly a stub, it needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

I've added all the storm names in to the article, now all they need are storm summaries, which I've started. Then it will be a start class. From there, I'll try to get track maps from Jdorje and storm pics. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're still missing at least 2, possibly 9, systems. I added some details to the systems that had little or nothing to their summary. I'll look around for the others. Thegreatdr 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. The missing named storms were gone due to a reference coding error. Oops. Changed class from stub to start. Thegreatdr 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2003 Pacific typhoon season

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2003 Pacific typhoon season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ATCR":

  • From Tropical Storm Linfa (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003). 2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 82–91. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
  • From Typhoon Krovanh (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003). 2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 174–187. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
  • From Tropical Storm Morakot (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003). 2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 148–157. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
  • From Typhoon Kujira (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003). 2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
  • From Tropical Storm Koni: Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003). 2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 118–131. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

Reference named "JMA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2003 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 20:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:TheAustinMan! I am going to review this Good article nomination of yours. My issues are listed below.--12george1 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Though the season ran year-round, the first storm to develop was Yanyan west of the Marshall Islands on January 15." - I'm not sure I like the wording of this sentence. Was the first storm named "Yanyan west of the Marshall Islands on January 15."? Also, what's with the "Though" at the beginning? Basically the first part is proved by the second part. My suggestion: "The season ran year-round, with the first storm, Yanyan, developing west of the Marshall Islands on January 15."
  • "Maemi was also the most intense tropical cyclone of the season with a minimum barometric pressure of 910 mbar (hPa; 26.87 inHg)." - Mbar, hPa, inHg. What's all of that? :P
  • "Pacific basin are assigned a name by the Tokyo Typhoon Center." - Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the Joint Typhoon Warning Center that assigns names? If you do replace the Tokyo Typhoon Center with the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, remember to wikilink it and include the abbreviation (JTWC), since it goes unexplained later in the article.
  • The number of typhoons and intense TCs in the TSR forecasts table do not match the infobox.
  • "In 2003, the JMA monitored 21 tropical cyclones of at least tropical storm intensity; of those, 14 reached typhoon intensity. [...] (PAGASA) monitored three additional cyclones of at least tropical storm intensity that were not monitored by the JMA.[1][14][15]" - I'm confused here despite the fact that I am a WPTC member. :P I counted 22 TCs that reached tropical storm intensity. Since there were 24 named system overall (21 official, 3 unofficial), wouldn't that leave only two additional cyclones at tropical storm intensity that weren't monitored by JMA?
  • "Typhoon Etau earlier in the month made landfall in Japan, resulting in 17 deaths.[15][21]" - Wikilink landfall
  • "January 18 with 1-minute sustained winds of 60 mph (97 km/h)" - Switch the order of the units.
  • "depression on April 9 well removed form any landmasses." - Typo
  • "several hours until less conducive atmospheric conditions slightly" - Ditto
  • "A tropical depression developed on August 2, and gradually intensified while moving to the northwest, becoming a tropical storm on August 3 and a typhoon a day later." - No location mentioned. Did this TD happen to form near Antarctica?!? :P
  • Similar issue in Krovanh's section. No location is mentioned until the fifth sentence.
  • "The passage of the typhoon caused surface chlorophyll-a concentration in the ocean to increase 30-fold." - I think you should wikilink Chlorophyll a
  • "On September 5, former Hurricane Jimena crossed the international date line into the basin." ---> "On September 5, former Hurricane Jimena crossed the International Date Line into the basin. "
  • Alright, that should be it. I look forward to passing this article. :) --12george1 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, great job TheAustinMan. :) I am now going to pass this article and list it as a Good Article. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2003 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=1196380711"