Talk:2009–10 Australian region cyclone season/Archive 1

Timeline! HELP!!

What did I do wrong? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure.Jason Rees (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHatever happened you fixed it. Thanks. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Tropical Low 01?

That's what it says here[1]. And I'm pretty sure you use this site, right? I think it's Low 01, but they could just be naming it as the only one around.

Like the JMA they just use 01 meaning the first storm currently active. All tropical lows with advices are numbered 01. --Priyanka 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be 02U if Perth did high sea warnings for a system earlier this year. - グリフオーザー (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watches

Do you really think you need to tell them about watches? Just wondering. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STC Laurence wind speed (10 min)

I'm thinking of using the 65 knt rather then the 74 knt wind speed (Based on the AWS on Troughton Island) which is currently used the infobox as the TCWC Darwin's latest Tropical Cyclone Technical Bulletin has 65 knt. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that looks like it'd be mph. Though I could be wrong. By the way, I don't see a 74 knot. I only see that as gust.Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is in knots or km/h (see the table headings for each column [Maximum 10 min average wind speed for that AWS is so far 74 knot = 137 km/h according to the recording at 7:56am AWST]). Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That knots and i see a 74 under max sustained but go with the 65kts as even when they fly planes into TCs they dont go with whats been observed by the plane they go with something a little bit lower.Jason Rees (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it now. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the advices for?

They only have gusts, we don't use that, what is that help for? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean on the talk page, it is generally good to have all the warnings for when you write an article and for other reasons. --Priyanka 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Tropical Low's with designation numbers count as Tropical Depressions in this basin?

For example, atm we have Tropical Low 02U and Tropical Low 03U, neither of which are listed as Tropical Depressions in the top info part. Wouldn't it make more sense to include these in that box? Cyclonica (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YeahJason Rees (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Us

Whilst im certain that the tropical low in the GOC AOR is significant enough for a U number, we cant add it until we have a Techical bulletin or something to back us up as otherwise we will end up in the same postion as last year. Another reason has just come to light after checking todays TWOs, We have 3 lows which have a HIGH potential off developing further. Jason Rees (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Low 05U

I'd like to bring up that, I watched the Tropical Lows of BoM, and what is 05U, was actually 04U for a short while. I don't know what happened, maybe it weakened and reformed, because where 04U was, all of a sudden there was a 05U. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reffering to this system?, If so you were wrong to call it 04U as Darwin hadnt publically announced the lows number. When they did announce the number they called it 05U not 04U.Jason Rees (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I could have sworn I saw "Identifier: 04U" on a Technical Bulletin. Then whatever happened to 04U? Syntheticalconnections (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep 04U has not been announced publicly yet: theres two candidates for it though: the Brisbane low that ive just archived or my preffered choice the Perth low thats gonna cross 90E soon.Jason Rees (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Perth low is undoubtedly 04U as it had a shipping warning, they're ALWAYS given designations (just not "publicly" unless it's a tech summary) with shipping warnings. I also notice Darwin tends to issue designations quicker than the other two areas, the entire system is floored and extremely confusing for the public. I never saw the Brisbane low have a high chance, not once. The one time I saw it listed as "High" was when 05U was going to enter the Coral Sea a few days back, which obviously wasn't the same low. Cyclonica (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... 91S? Ok. Yeah that one got organized. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya 04U is still a mystery of what system it was but 91S invest sounds like the right indentification for the missing number -- グリフオーザー (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives?

For the tropical cyclone pages, you archive the data that you put on the discussion page. for example, right now the "January" section. I'm trying to update the tracks of cyclones right now, and I need to find 03U's advices and changing my Laurence track from NRL's file to the TCWC Darwin and Perth's advices. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no public advices from 03U because no land was affected refer to the TC Technical Bulletins for track help. - グリフオーザー (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That works too. I was asking where to find it, but I found it now. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah all the storm logs are archived within the monthly summuaries For 03U Id just use Reunions RBT since that contains all the data.Jason Rees (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! 1/3 done! I'm on 31 of 96 (Laurence) Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really be using Fiji's designation's for Australia's Basin?

I mean, sure, at least Fiji are not utterly random with their designations (by logic, 04F will end up being 07U, but the BoM are so random it might end up as 11U, or maybe even the mysterious lost 04U) but it shouldn't count here until the BoM starts monitoring it (outside of 3 day outlooks).

Regardless the system is a massive one and I don't doubt in the long term it'll probably form.

Incidentally, I have emailed all 3 TCWC's of the BoM at once asking them to explain the whole U numbers and to actually indicate what 04U is. They'll either reply asking me to stop annoying them, or actually give an answer (or just ignore me....).

Ugh. These U designations and lack of info make the Australian article so hard to maintain properly. Cyclonica (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It isnt counted towards the seasonal total yet if you look the season total says we have 6TDs/lows which reflects the number issued by BOM. 2) The low stays until we find out if its significant enough to have a U number which lets face it - it should have as its very likley to undergo a Fuwjihara with Neville and is currently affecting the solomons. 3) Also i dont see why we shouldnt have the Fiji designation since its still 04F and it easily sets the low apart from the rest. For the record the 2 missing are taken from the [first Sitrep]] issued by the Solomons National Disaster Council. Jason Rees (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I can see your point. Thanks for linking to that Fuwjihara effect thing, I hadn't heard much about it until now. And the convection around 04F is very large so it'll be interesting. Guess we'll find out more with BoM's 3 day outlook. Cyclonica (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a very helpful response back from the BoM. RE: 04U

As we thought, 04U is the Perth Low. 17S 116E are the exact latitudes. I was given a list of the current numbers, everything else is correct.

This is a very helpful person so I may be able to email him again in the future if we're confused on any identifiers. 07U is also designated already, 10S, 162E. I was asked to be judicious with this information however so I don't think he'd appreciated me posting the chart itself. Cyclonica (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: The BoM (from the chart) started tracking 07U from 20/1/2010 (which is when it was still in Fiji's area). Dunno what to do about that. Cyclonica (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh it doesnt matter as Nadi put it on the border between the 2 early on the 20th. Just for the record who assigned the U to Edzani? Perth or Jakarta?Jason Rees (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perth would have assigned the number. From what I know Jakarta does not have a numbering system -- グリフオーザー (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, only the BoM can assign the U numbers (and I they do for any system they think could develop into a Tropical Cyclone or enter their area as a Tropical Cyclone), anyway here is a list for information sake thus far

01U 07/12/2009 Laurence Coral Sea 10 145

02U 01/01/2010 N/A Arafura Sea 12 135

03U 01/01/2010 Edzani Indian Ocean 8 96

04U 12/01/2010 N/A Indian Ocean 17 116

05U 14/01/2010 Neville Gulf Carp 13 137

06U 18/01/2010 Magda Indian Ocean 12 123

07U 20/01/2010 Olga Pacific Ocean 10 162 Cyclonica (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cyclonica Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically Tropical Depressions on the SS scale do NOT count in this basin?

JTWC only warn (originally) for Tropical Storms in this basin, when a TCFA is issued, the storm is usually at 30 knots, which is almost a Tropical Storm, but definitely a Tropical Depression.

...So we NEVER list Tropical Depressions here at all if it's SS scale? It's either that or we do list them based on the file history JTWC provides when they do issue a TCFA otherwise it's severely flawed. In my honest opinion, it has to be one or the other. Prime example is Cyclone Neville, it was a Tropical Depression by SS standards, yet the edit has been reverted twice, so this kinda needs to be sorted out. I'm assuming we must wait for the JTWC to issue an actual warning (which as I've stated ONLY happens as the system becomes a Tropical STORM not a DEPRESSION in this basin (as opposed to the NW Pacific, where they're labeled Depressions at 25 knots). Cyclonica (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, since Neville was short lived and the JTWC issues advisories for storms about twice a day, it was not officially recognized as a tropical storm, therefore not being 09S.NEVILLE. It also caught BoM off guard, there was no advisory (in the Coral Sea) before it became Neville. No one anticipated it. Also, the JTWC numbers tropical storms if a) 10-min winds are lower so the RSMC's don't call it a storm, or b) they just don't recognize it yet. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, while there is a TCFA it says AVAILABLE DATA DOES NOT JUSTIFY ISSUANCE OF NUMBERED TROPICAL

CYCLONE WARNINGS AT THIS TIME." This means that it is not a tropical depression. Thank you --Priyanka 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I just finished stating, at the same time they "say" that they imply the system has sustained winds of 30 knots, which in any Northern Hemisphere basin, WOULD count as a Tropical Depression. However despite this massive flaw I guess we'll be forced to simply ignore any of the JTWC's data until actual warnings (again I'll reiterate, they do NOT issue warnings on the FORMATION of Tropical DEPRESSIONS in the Southern Hemisphere, period) for a TS appear to form (winds greater than 34 knots justify warnings, which is TS strength). To say the system was not a TD at all is utterly incorrect Anhamirak, as it would count as one in any northern basin (minus maybe the Indian, not sure there). JTWC's file history shows it at 30 knots for a brief period; It's not uncommon to see TD's in the Atlantic or N Pacific called TD's when their winds reach even 25 knots.

The conclusion I can come to here is that JTWC's definition for a Tropical Depression (due to 12 hour updates in the Southern Hemisphere) should be ignored until the storm receives actual warnings (at which point it'll be a TS). Since it's utterly impossible for a storm in this basin (SS wise) to be called a Tropical Depression unless it's weakening from a stronger system. It seems ridiculous, but the only option. Cyclonica (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the JTWC was not issuing warnings on that system as a tropical depression. Also even though it reached 30-knots, it did not necessarily become a TD. Besides, the JTWC did not give Neville a number and therefore it was not considered a TD by them at the current moment. They might upgrade it post-season. --Priyanka 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. I was just confused as to why my edits were reverted though I can see where you're coming from. Though if it has winds of 30 knots it is a Tropical Depression, even the main Tropical Cyclone page on this website states that (it's technically only 4 knots off being a TS, it's just due to how the JTWC opperate here as opposed to other basins). I'll no longer update the 1-min winds in this basin unless JTWC issiues an actual warning (i.e. 34 knots or greater). Cyclonica (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can still update the winds but only after the JTWC begins warnings, then it is classified as a tropical cyclone and all the data can be used. --Priyanka 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands missing children

Did Tropical Cyclone Olga pass over the islands? The inline citation doesn't source the statement about missing children. I think the sentence should be removed. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Olga did pass over the Solomons, but it was as a Tropical depression/low as oppossed to a Tropical Cyclone. The Inline citation does source the missing children 3 paragraphs down under a sub header called East Honaira. However the sentence needs updating as ive heard that both Kids are now dead. [2], [3].Jason Rees (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I should of checked the other refs, especially since my browser displays some ref numbers incorrectly. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]