Talk:2008 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

About Current Storm Information

Why is it that the section Current Storm Information is not current??? I think it is expected by everyone that it would be current (that is, the latest), right??? For example, in the case of the Sinlaku article, the latest JTWC advisory there is one that was still issued on September 18. And today is the 20th... That's why I've put the update template over that section... And I would also plan to put the update template over the Current Storm Information subsection of the Hagupit section.

In this case I propose that the update template be always over the sections or subsections named Current Storm Information on every storm article as well as on storm section, if that storm has no article yet (or cannot be made an article due to the storm's weak intensity and/or minimal damage). -Pika ten10 (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been here in a long while, but last time I checked, the edit button was still there. If something's not right, fix it. - SpLoT // 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I mean here is that anyone who sees that the section Current Storm Information is not current (as it must be!!) must edit it immediately. I'm not always editing here, ok??? So I can't be always be the one to update it. -Pika ten10 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya sort have been hard to keep this discussion page up to date as well.. I am guessing a lot of people are busy enjoying the last bit of Northern Hemisphere summer days. =P -- グリフオーザー (talk)

Again how many times would I reiterate, Please update the CURRENT STORM INFORMATION, which is supposed to be current... The JMA, JTWC and PAGASA advisories there are from yesterday's. It seems to me that I am only the one updating that section. Note this: I would not always be the one to update it... But for now, I'll update it... However, please update it later on, OK??? -Pika ten10 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see improvement as PAGASA's info is the latest one. Check out its next advisory to be issued at 1500 UTC (2300 PST). But as for JTWC it is still from yesterday's... Can one update it...??? -Pika ten10 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I Will update JTWC now as their 15z advisory is now out Jason Rees (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would help but I am not so good with converting all the data and I tend to mess something up. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as this: whoever is free and cares enough to update it will update it. Which is pretty much how Wikipedia works. - SpLoT // 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hagupit

i have started the sandbox article up Here Jason Rees (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

However

I'm not one to claim that you need to use different words for the same thing in every sentence, but when 50% of the sentences in the article start with "however", something is wrong. You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means. — jdorje (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

CAT 5

Jangmi was NOT a cat 5 at its peak. Category 5 typhoons have peak winds Greater than 135 knots 155 mph 250 km/h. Jangmi had 135 knots 150 mph 250 km/h thus making it a cat 4 Jason Rees (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is true.. hard to believe that with T7.0 Dvorak Intensity and such a high intensity from 10 min sustained winds RSMC's (125 knots! HKO and CMA) -- グリフオーザー (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Its just my opinion but with reanalysis and checking all the RSMC's with JTWC put to a 10-min value, i had Jangmi at 221 km/h (251 km/h 1-minute mean) that would make it a Category 5 storm. Sonpudong (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

JTWC never upgraded to Category Five on the Saffir Simpson scale which is used on the main page. (there were no 140 knots or higher advisories so the main page wouldn't show that the system made it to CAT 5). -- グリフオーザー (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The running best track has been changed to 145kt peak intensity. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would they raise the pressure.. 904 was measured by recon. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Forecast track maps

It just dawned on me that we can use the JTWC maps supplied by the NRL as the forecast map in the infobox. I know it's not the "official" information from the JMA but we can't get any better than that because we don't know the copyright laws for their images. I've already started it today by putting the current information infobox back up with the track map in it. Before you do anything to it, I just want some feedback on this idea. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

why not just use the Forecast maps straight from the JTWC website? Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That too...I forgot that they take it right from the JTWC. I'll do that with the next update I can add. I'll do what I can to keep up with the current information so that it wont be a problem, I have school from 9-3 so it's hard for me to get in the midday update, otherwise I should be able to get in the other three updates, the late night one is iffy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re; button bar

i have added a line break to the current seasonal button bar so it looks better - this break has been added after STS Phanfone as we get further towards the end of the season i will move this break to 1/2 of the storms. Jason Rees (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

94W

Both the HKO & the CMA have designated it as a TD as well as JMA so do we add it to the article yet or if the JTWC upgrade to 22W. Jason Rees (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

other storm section since it hasn't become a named cyclone by JMA. -- グリフオーザー (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bavi extratropical bombing

Both the CMC and the GFS (the CMC shows it to a greater extent) show TS Bavi bombing as an extratropical cyclone just south of Alaska. The minimum pressure estimate would be at or below 950 hPa and the winds near 100mph. CMC GFS Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) NGP shows it too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Current 1-min winds estimated at 90mph. [1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. OK, that reminds me. The models all predict extremely strong winds for my location in Southern Ontario, and part of the low pressure system causing the winds is apparently the remnants of Bavi. If this happens, is this information includeable in an article, because it might be difficult to find sources? Extratropical storms frequently "bomb" south of Alaska, but this is special because it might affect my location right here. Is there any way to find reliable sources? Or, maybe a short sentence could be written under its meteorological history, about its extratropical reintensification (but please refrain from such words as "bombing"). Do they have TCRs for Pacific typhoons? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait and see what happens as i doubt there will be an article for Bavi. Astro only the HKO issue TCRs in this basin. The JTWC and JMA group all of theirs togaether and both issue ATCRs in March/April and October/November of the following Year Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PAGASA

When was the last time PAGASA resorted to the Auxillary List? Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1994 Pacific typhoon season, went all the way to G on the Auxiliary List. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclonebiskit - I wonder if we will get 8 more depressions within PAR to get to the Auxillary List this year Jason Rees (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

you think they will this year.. there is only two months to go.. - グリフオーザー (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

i think we will end up in a simular situation as 2004 as there we got to "Z" and as we only need a depression a week to form in the PAR I think its doable. On the other hand though when Frank was retired PAGASA predicted 16 more which would bring us to V & Vicky Jason Rees (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maysak

Ive got a Sandbox article located Here It looks about ready to be published but im going to wait for a couple of days Jason Rees (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Qunita-Siony

why has qunita been renamed as siony as Qunita was never downgraded to an Active area of low pressure?Jason Rees (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No Idea. I think because the low was EX-Maysak so they renamed it. Can't think of any other reason. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol i will update the timeline with something about the renaming Jason Rees (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, they might just be trying to mess with us since it's not a major storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly - i think that the JTWC were trying to mess with us with 17W. Allthough with the WMO meeting today maybe their not. (LOL) Jason Rees (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think ive just worked it out -Tropical depression Qunita absorbed the remeants of Rolly and thus has become a new system named - Siony Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

TCFA issued for Ex-Maysak (Quinta-Siony) by the JTWC Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to reconfirm it is Ex-Maysak (Quinta-Siony) the track map is showing the track of Maysak Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

& it gets even wierder lol PAGASA have now released their final Bullitten on Siony lolJason Rees (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if the JTWC and JMA will re-classify it a TS. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If the JMA do reclassify it as a TS does it get assigned a new name or not ? Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, depends if they're still classifying it as the same system. If not, this will be even more confusing. PAGASA and JMA classifying it as two, and JTWC as one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

you dont say i tried to update the article im doing for Maysak and im running in to a problem within a minute by figuring out how to do PAGASA Name Jason Rees (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

3 AM and still nothing

Todo (moved from WT:WPTC)

Last night, when I made some actualizations to the german version of the article I realized how much this article ist a mess. Pitifully we won't find a solution for the confusion with all the uprading and downgrading of storms in that basin since JMA, PAGASA and JTWC all are cooking there own soup and we need at least Tokyo and Honululu concurring to each other because of the RSMC datum (and scale) is the offical source to work with but the JTWC is needed to "rate" the storms according to the SSHS. Aaarg! However, please could one of the experts look over that article. In the following I list some of the flaws:

• many sections are dealing with statements like The next day as Sinlaku moved towards Japan it weakened into a Severe Tropical Storm and exited PAGASA's area of responsibility whilst the JTWC did not downgrade Sinlaku to a tropical storm until late on September 15. By then they were followed by the JMA which downgraded Sinlaku to a tropical storm early the next day. On September 16 the JTWC reported that Sinlaku had restrengthened into a Typhoon whilst the JMA reported that Sinlaku had strengthened into a Severe Tropical Storm. However the JTWC Quickly downgraded Sinlaku back down in to a Tropical Storm whilst the JMA kept Sinlaku at Severe tropical Storm strength. Sorry, for dummies this is a terrible read. This example is from the section on Sinlaku – on some points of the text even a reader who knows about the confusing situation doesn't know which category the storm actually belonged to at that time. ;-)
• another bad section is about Hagupit – that storm formed somewhere near Guam and dissipated two weeks later over land, thus late on September 24 JTWC issued its final advisory on the system followed by JMA early the next day – Hagupit had to travel some miles distance between Guam and PAGASA's area in which that storm dissipated over land – but let me ask, over which island of the Philippine archiple that storm dissipated actually and whích route it took during the twelve days of existence while on the way.
• we distinguish official and inofficial storms in this bassin. Actually we are near on WP:NOR when we use ACEs and SSHS in this bassin – XY was a category 3 typhoon – where's the source to do so? I've read two or three of the latest annual meetings of the WMO's Typhoon Commitee and I saw somewhere the statement that the WMO is aware of the confusion in this bassin and calling on its members to figure out a solution. Until then we have to establish a guideline what to do with those confusing data concerning storm intensities as announced by JMA, JTWC, and PAGASA. Actually here we also have a WP:NPOV problem.
• another problem I am encountering frequently is the using of news.yahoo.com and its counterpart at google.com – yahoo's links are gone within 30 days and Google news doesn't keep 'em longer than 60 days. Many statements in tropical cyclone related articles (and many other articles which are in the news) don't have valid links because of the editor who used the source didn't know about that problem and/or din't care on it and/or didn't know that webarchive or webcitation.org might be his friend.
• in many instances references are not cited by using the cite web/news/journal ... templates but we see refs like <ref>ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Tokyo/2008090912.RJTD</ref>. (Actually I corrected a zillion of those in last year's typhoon season's article but that problem's like a hydra...). That and the use of not-stable sources is a big big problem for this project (and many other articles dealing with real time developments). It is a good thing to use webcitation.org, but is not good if the link is formatted as <ref>http://www.webcitation.org/541asd.html</ref>.

If this place was within my "home-wikipedia" I would try to improve that but first of all my English's too bad. However I didn't adress the issues on the article's talk page since it is an issue for most of the non-hurricane tropical cyclone bassins and is seen in other years as well.

Well I think that was enough stuff for the moment. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Yep it is poorly written at the minute.
2. I Personally would say any wind speed reference to PAGASA needs to go as they are a NMHS and we dont use NMHS Data unless its JMA or they have a depression that they only monitor (e.g. Gener 08).
3. References - they need to be in CITEWEB and in the SHEM this year i will be trying to get all the references in to Cite Web as we go.
4. Offical and Unoffical Storms section - This Happens on all the articles post 2000. - I dont acctully see the need for it esspecially as these other storms are monitored by JMA as depressions.
5. We are far from NOR on the SSHS as the JTWC uses 1-min winds which is what the SSHS uses.
6. ACE is borderline orignal research in this basin - as the source we have for it (Digtal Typhoon) uses Operational Data for the ace.
7. I havent seen any google or yahoo refs on the season article yet though i suspect its in the articles Jason Rees (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)