Jump to content

Talk:2006 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depressions

[edit]

Are we gonna add all the depressions that the IMD monitered? I thought we were going to, but then nothing happened and I don't know where to get the info now. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Padgett has some in his summaries, although I don't know of any formal names for them. [1] This is helpful since these were before users started archiving bulletins, and IMD has no available archives as far as I know. Good kitty (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TC Naming Threshhold Wind Speed

[edit]

Is there any threshhold wind speed required before RSMC New Delhi names Tropical Cyclones in the North Indian Ocean? Is there some defined guideline that RSMC adheres to or just their descretion? Whether wind is one minute sustained or ten minute sustained? There isn't much clarity on this subject.--Ugaap 06:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WMO/ESCAP Panel had left some room there. Maximum sustained wind speed may be based on average period of one, three or ten minutes depending upon the regional practices. Actually, the T-no/wind speed conversion adopted by IMD is very similar to one in US.Momoko 10:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34kt ten minute average from RSMC New Delhi. P.K. 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is 34kt ten minute average from RSMC for Numbering or Naming?--Ugaap 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Naming. --Coredesat 04:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering up to 2004, naming since late 204.Momoko 09:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TC Names & Numbers

[edit]

Is there some rule for naming and numbering Tropical Cyclones in the North Indian Ocean? Currently, we have TC Ogni without a number like say '6B'. Now if this storm starts weakening hereafter, would we have any cyclone number associated with the TC Ogni.--Ugaap 08:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that TC are numbered first without the names like say 4A.Noname and later named as say Mukda (4A)--Ugaap 08:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Numbered systems XX-A or XX-B are issued by the JTWC, which is always unofficial. The official warning centre is the IMD, which issues its own numbers and names the storms, for example Ogni was the 10th BOB storm of the year. – Chacor 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from 2005, the only official designation is the name. Previously, the official designation is a series of number in this form, BOB 8105 1113, which mean that it is the fifth cyclonic storm in Bay of Bengal in 1981 and attained cyclonic storm intensity on November 13. All other designation are not official.Momoko 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually bothered to read the IMD advisories you'll find something different. The final advisory on Ogni clearly says " BOB 10/2006/12 Dated: 30th October, 2006". – Chacor 08:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or even the second advisory, when it was still unnamed and not even a deep depression: "BOB 10/2006/02 Dated : 29th October, 2006 Subject: Depression over Bay of Bengal " – Chacor 08:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chacor, thats the date - October... Unless we are missing one it would be 09 anyway not 10.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a link to an advisory for an active storm before this can be discussed properly.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the date, it's the storm number (otherwise the 02 would make no sense for the new depression). The date is already given separately, look carefully. BOB 09/2006 was TC-05B. – Chacor 09:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from here, Mala (in April) was BOB 1/2006, not 4/2006. – Chacor 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even further proof: Mukda and 92B formed on the same day, Sept 21. See here. "No. ARB/2/2006/ 01and BOB 08/2006/01 Dated 21st September, 2006" – Chacor 09:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Chacor "Numbered systems XX-A or XX-B are issued by the JTWC, which is always unofficial. The official warning centre is the IMD, which issues its own numbers and names the storms, for example Ogni was the 10th BOB storm of the year" - Then why do we use 01A or 05B etc. since those numbers are from JTWC and are always Unofficial--Ugaap 09:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because JTWC sometimes tracks storms that the IMD doesn't. See the 2006 Pacific typhoon season for example. Where the JTWC, or PAGASA, or anyone, tracked systems the JMA didn't, they each have their own section, because they're still notable enough to warrant mention. – Chacor 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must emphasize once again that advisory number is disinct from the official designation!Momoko 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source? As linked above, and also see here (an official WMO site, which says "Example: The second tropical cyclone of 2004 in the Bay of Bengal will be identified as BOB 0402."), what you say is apparently not the case. – Chacor 08:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old operational plan had stated it clear enough! A number to sort advisory is not the official identification number!Momoko 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as wind speed in a cyclonic disturbance attains a 34 kt threshold value it will be given an identification number by RSMC - tropical cyclones New Delhi. The identification system will cover both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. They will be serially numbered each year starting from storm No.1 and ending the series at the end of the year. For quick identification in messages handled by the GTS, a simple code will be used. For cyclonic disturbances of this category in the Bay of Bengal the identification code will be BOB and for those in the Arabian Sea it will be ARB. These codes will be followed by a year identification and a serial number identification number (in two digits each). For example, the first cyclonic disturbance attaining the 34 kt threshold value in 1985 in the Bay of Bengal will be identified as BOB 8501 and that in the Arabian Sea will be identified as ARB 8501. This will be followed by a month and date identification number (again in two digits each), for example, the fourth cyclonic disturbance satisfying the definition in the Bay of Bengal on 14 October 1985 will be identified as BOB 8504 1014.

If the life of a cyclonic disturbance spans two calendar years it will be accounted for in the year in which it has intensified to the stage where the wind speed has attained the 34 kt threshold value.

I need a soft copy of the source - a link, preferably. Until then, what the WMO says should stand. RSMCs are, after all, WMO-appointed. – Chacor 08:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you're basing off the "old" operational plan, that's a no-go. It has to be the current one. All indications so far are that they are numbered as such currently. – Chacor 08:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that the only identification system retained in current operational plan is the naming system! All other identification system are no longer adopted by the panel.Momoko 08:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've repeatedly said that I need a link to it. – Chacor 08:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current operational plans can be found easily in WMO website.[2] An older version is still present in the site.[3]Momoko 08:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said above they get given a number when they intensify from a well marked low pressure area to a depression. The TC number is the last two digits of the year followed by the system number for the Arabian Sea, or Bay of Bengal. So far this year there have been two systems that reached depression status in the ARB area and ten in the BOB area as has already been linked to in the UKww thread above. P.K. 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMD bulletin IDs and article storm IDs

[edit]

While the 2005 TCOP does not mention a numbering system outright, it doesn't explicitly say there isn't one (it does say that a name is assigned, but it doesn't explicitly say "storms are not tracked by numbers" or similar). In any case, at the very least, for easier identification, in the article I believe we should use the IMD bulletin identification number. This way anyone who may have seen the IMD advisories on BOB 08/2006 would at least be able to know which depression the section was referring to. Leaving it as "depression" does not help. Our consideration here should be the layman reader, who may have seen more than one depression reported on. – Chacor 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The operational plan doesn't explicitly say there isn't one. However, it mean that such a number in not considered official in the panel.Momoko 10:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no way to distinguish between depressions easily otherwise. -- RattleMan 09:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree just "depression" is poor. However the problem is twofold. Firstly we have no reliable source for the designations. Before we can use IMD designations at all we need to find one. The second is we have good evidence that the first advisory on the storm that became Mala was BOB 01/2006/01. That is a header for the advisory, it is not clear what, if any, number the storm is given by the IMD. This isn't a simple thing. As an example in 2005AHS, Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two is in effect that the official name of that depression. At the time it was designated "AL222005" by the NHC. However that storm is now officially AL232005 (due to the unnamed storm). Is the IMD number the equivalent of the designation "Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two", "AL222005" or "92L.INVEST" (which would be the case if the IMD computer model needs a designation for input). We have no source giving the status of BOB 01/2006 and until we do we cannot use them. Assuming that the BOB number is what we think it is (I agree with appearance here), I suggest we use BOB 08 as the depression designation in the article. However, until we have any indication as to what the designation means we should avoid using it. The best alternative at this time, with no verification as to the status of the BOB number, is to use something like "Bay of Bengal September Depression" - that is usable and is definitely valid. There is a connected wider issue here which I'm going to raise at project talk.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Bay of Bengal September Depression" is usable. But I think it is better to quote the date as well, like what IMD did last year: 1. Cyclonic Storm "HIBARU" over the Bay of Bengal, January 13-17 2. Depression over the Arabian Sea, June 21-22 3. Land depression June 27- July 05 4. Deep Depression over the Bay of Bengal, July 29-31 5. Depression over the Bay of Bengal, September 12-16 6. Depression over the Arabian Sea, September 14-16 7. Cyclonic Storm “PYARR” over the Bay of Bengal, September 17-21 8. Deep Depression over the Bay of Bengal, October 26-29 9. Depression over the Bay of Bengal, November 20-22 10. Cyclonic storm “ BAAZ” over the Bay of Bengal, November 28 - December 02 11. Cyclonic storm “FANOOS” over the Bay of Bengal, December 06-10 12. Deep Depression over the Bay Bengal, December, 15- 22 Momoko 10:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that it will be impossible to distinguish between depressions if there happen to be multiple notable ones in a month. --Coredesat 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I haven't seen two cyclonic disturbances in NIO having exactly the same lifespan. If there is a pair in the future, we may wait and see how IMD is going to call them. For the time being, phrases like "the depression over the Bay of Bengal", "the deep depression over the Arabian Sea", etc. are still adopted by IMD. It seems that IMD do not intend to change this practice.
2005 was a rather active NIO season. As shown above, the IMD pratice was able to distinguish between the 12 systems.Momoko 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They get numbered as soon as they reach depression status (Between 17-33kts). I see nothing dubious with the numbering of BOB 0608 at all. P.K. 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Firstly we have no reliable source for the designations. Before we can use IMD designations at all we need to find one. The second is we have good evidence that the first advisory on the storm that became Mala was BOB 01/2006/01. That is a header for the advisory, it is not clear what, if any, number the storm is given by the IMD."

Have a look at the advisories I've got posted on http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=30&start=1 . The second post has the second advisory from when the system that became Mala was still a depression, and the third post is the fifth advisory after it had been named. I know it is not a full advisory archive but I was in the midde of my final university exams at the time. Both show it was BOB 0601 as is indicated should be the case on the WMO TC page which is based on the content of the operational manuals. This is a reliable source. http://severe.worldweather.wmo.int/tc/in/acronyms.html P.K. 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen what I had extracted from the previous operational plan? (This section was replaced by the naming policy in the latest version.) 34kt is the thereshold, not 17kt!

As soon as wind speed in a cyclonic disturbance attains a 34 kt threshold value it will be given an identification number by RSMC - tropical cyclones New Delhi. The identification system will cover both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal.Momoko 12:00, 3 March 2007 (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) 05:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 North Indian Ocean cyclone 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season&oldid=1196486231"