Jump to content

Talk:2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

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

December

[edit]
07U.Penny - Tropical Cyclone, Category One
Best status from TCMC Darwin 40kts 990hPa
Weak Tropical Low from TCWC Darwin 2018-12-26 over the Arafura Sea
Tropical Low Penny 07U 2018-12-26 @ 13.0°S 140.0°E
Tropical Cyclone Penny, Category One 2018-12-31 @ 12.7°S 141.1°E

Darwin TWO

2018-12-26 // 2018-12-27 // 2018-12-30
2018-12-31 // 0829z
2019-01-01

Brisbane Cyclone Advice

01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // 06 // 07 // 08 // 09 // 10
11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17
Perth Tropical Low
Weak Tropical Low from TCWC Perth 2018-12-27 @ 9°S 128°E

Perth TWO

2018-12-27 // 2018-12-28
Perth Tropical Low
Weak Tropical Low from TCWC Perth 2018-12-30 south of Java @ 12°S 113°E

Perth TWO

2018-12-30 // 2018-12-31 // 2019-01-01

Season Summary

[edit]
ID Date (ACST) TC Name Original Basin Source
01U 2018-09-25 *Liua Coral Sea
02U 2018-11-09 *Bouchra Indian Ocean
04U 2018-12-01 Owen Coral Sea BT Database
05U 2018-12-14 Kenanga Indian Ocean BT Database
07U 2019-01-01 Penny Northern Queensland BT Database
11U 2019-01-11 -- Indian Ocean BT Database
12U 2019-01-19 Riley Indian Ocean BT Database
13U 2019-01-23 -- Northern Queensland PTCR
14U 2019-02-11 Oma Coral Sea BT Database
15U 2019-03-07 -- Indian Ocean
17U 2019-03-07 Savannah Indian Ocean BT Database
19U 2019-03-14 Veronica Indian Ocean BT Database
20U 2019-03-17 Trevor Coral Sea BT Database
21U 2019-04-03 Wallace Arafura Sea BT Database
22U 2019-04-05 -- Arafura Sea
23U 2019-04-21 -- Indian Ocean
24U 2019-04-27 *Lorna Indian Ocean
25U 2019-05-04 Lili Indonesia
26U 2019-05-09 Ann Coral Sea

Location of Advisories

[edit]
Tropical Cyclone Three Day Outlook Jakarta \\ Perth \\ Darwin \\ Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone High Seas Warning Jakarta 1 \\ Jakarta 2 \\ Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin 1 \\ Darwin 2 \\ Brisbane 1 \\ Brisbane 2
Tropical Cyclone Technical Bulletin Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin 1 \\ Darwin 2 \\ Brisbane 1 \\ Brisbane 2
Main Pages Jakarta \\ BoM \\ Port Moresby \\ JTWC
ABIO10 STWA \\ ABPW10 STWA
JTWC(S) 1 \\ JTWC(S) 2 \\ JTWC(S) 3
JTWC(P) 1 \\ JTWC(P) 2 \\ JTWC(P) 3
Running Best track
JMA Archives: Jakarta // Perth // Darwin // Brisbane // JTWC

Owen article

[edit]

Cyclone Owen has lasted a long time, as well as taken an odd track. Should it get an article? Alex of Canada (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex of Canada: Since it impacted land and caused significant damage I see no reason why someone couldnt write it. However, one would have to be careful since no significant damage was reported. Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support it — it was one of the longest lived tropical cyclones in the AU Region. EBGamingWiki (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would second this as well. Owen was a long-lived tropical cyclone with notable impacts in Australia, including flash flooding. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No proof of BOM numbering (xxU)

[edit]

I do not understand how some editors can get the designations without any proof. They should be all removed within 24 hours unless there are solid evidences.-- 🐱💬 07:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go for removal @Meow: as none of the U numbers are currently able to be sourced or verified with the sole exception of Owen. However, with regards to Liua, I wrote to the BoM and challenged their forecast policy, as they hadnt issued a TWO or publically called it Tropical Low 01U and they wrote back and confirmed that they had called it but were not issuing any TWO's at that stage as it wasnt expected to be a TC in the Aus region.Jason Rees (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - @ChocolateTrain, Typhoon2013, and Meow: Tropical Low 07U has just been declared by Brisbane - I will let @Keith Edkins: cite it above when he is ready to but look at the Technical bulletin.Jason Rees (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We discusse this issue already in Talk:2011–12 Australian region cyclone season#Season Summary. It seems that only Brisbane is publishing them and in some occasions also disturbances were counted. --Matthiasb (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Matthiasb: technically all 3 do publish them, however, it seems to only be when we get technical bulletins, TCR or the system is listed in the BT Database. Also we have to remember that some systems are probobaly at the disturbance level but i see no reason why we cant include them in Other systems since we are not allowed to pick and choose.Jason Rees (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they are given in the Cyclone outlook. Example: The Mar 13- Currently active (16/3) Tropical low is 19U. AAnnoonnyymous (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: http://web.archive.org/web/20190316133210/http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/nwcyclone.shtml AAnnoonnyymous (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TC Savannah

[edit]

Is Savannah the one which developed southeast from Java last week? I ask this because it is not there in its map. If it is, it brought above average rainfall and caused some floods that killed a child on a road accident in the flooded Solo–Kertosono Toll Road near Madiun. Is this can be listed as fatality? Ref: "Seorang Bocah Tewas dalam Kecelakaan Mobil di Tol Madiun yang Banjir" (in Indonesian). Kompas.com. 2019-03-07. Retrieved 2019-03-15. RXerself (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Savannah was not a (official) tropical low at that time. AAnnoonnyymous (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article pertains to Savannah. Since we include the impacts of storms as precursors and remnants, this warrants inclusion in the article. As such, I have gone ahead and updated the article with the given source. By the way, Savannah was a tropical low at the time the article was written, not even a precursor low. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: If this is the case, then the damages and deaths on Java is somehow related to Savannah. We may have an article for it. --B dash (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets make sure that we have a source that says the flooding was because of Savannah and not say the monsoon trough.Jason Rees (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: It seems that User:ChocolateTrain found those sources. --B dash (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Just as B dash said, I found a source that specified that the impacts were as a result of Savannah. For some reason, the link I provided in the edit summary did not create a hyperlink. I must have had something wrong with the markup. I have provided the link again here. I will rewrite the section a little later on to improve the expression and grammar. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica

[edit]

I have created an archive for Veronica's warnings. NoahTalk 21:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BOM

[edit]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

JTWC

[edit]

TCFA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Trevor

[edit]

I have created an archive for Trevor's warnings. NoahTalk 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BOM

[edit]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

JTWC

[edit]

TCFA TCFA TCFA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Veronica's damage

[edit]

I noticed that the port in Pilbara coast was closed due to Veronica, the iron can't be exported. We were not sure if this damage is related to Veronica or not. These two: [1] [2] showed that Veronica is related to the damage, while this just indicated the damage, seems no relation to Veronica. Pinging @Hurricane Noah and ChocolateTrain: for this. --B dash (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I opposed was the raw value of the iron being counted as damages. If the economic part is added, that is fine. NoahTalk 14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: The iron ore export delays certainly don’t count as damages, but they will have a significant impact on the economy. As such, I think it should be included in the season effects table and the season article info box as an economic impacts total. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the raw value of the iron had been counted originally rather than the economic damage caused by the delay. NoahTalk 01:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover). B dash (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


2018–19 Australian region cyclone season → 2018–2019 Australian region cyclone season – Per WP:DATERANGE - FlightTime (open channel) 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lorna

[edit]

I double checked with the BoM about Lorna who responded by telling me:

One of our experienced TC analysts had a close look at the microwave imagery and decided (like Reunion) that the centre stayed *just* west of 90E. So, like those "other editors" we plan to be pedantic and not include it in the numbers for the season or keep a record in our database. It's interesting to compare Lorna with Kenanga. Kenanga was in the Australian region for <6 hours; but since it was in the region at one stage, and even though operationally we reached agreement that Reunion would take it straight over from Indonesia (ie. we didn't issue any warnings for it), we will count Kenanga in the Australian region stats and we'll put Reunion's best track in our database. So we will have 9 TCs so far this season with a low-mod chance of another next week.

As a result, I formally propose that we remove Lorna from the stats and chuck it into the other systems.Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support since the BOM said Lorna was never actually in the basin. NoahTalk 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jason Rees: Hi Jason and yeah it's been a while! So I believe we are experiencing a similar situation with 2015's Loke. In my opinion, we still include Lorna in the totals, although as a TL or as a TC. In fact, the BoM mentioned about "Ex-TC Lorna" entering the basin somewhere around 1/5 or 2/5? It is just up to other users to decide whether we include the STC Lorna from the 28th. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Typhoon2013: Yeah is been a while but anyway per Wikipedia's rules on Original Research we can not include it in the stats as a TL, TC or STC as it never entered the region per both Reunion and BoM. We can give it a line or two in other systems though. I would also be curious to see the TWO's that say that the remnants entered the basin, as Reunion's trackfile shows that Lorna turned back westwards as it approached the Australian Region and became a post tropical cyclone before being dropped.Jason Rees (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BoM states in its weekly tropical climate note: "Another weaker system, ex-tropical cyclone Lorna, which peaked at an intensity comparable to an Australian category 3 system, dissipated over the central southern Indian Ocean in the past 24 hours, just west of the Australian tropical cyclone region."Jason Rees (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Then how should we deal with the write-up for Lorna's section in the South-West Indian Ocean basin article? The section currently states that Lorna exited the basin twice into the Australian region basin, which runs counter to the information that has been presented here. It looks like a rewrite might be in order, but I don't know exactly how this should be done. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: I agree that a rewrite is in order as the section says that JTWC called it a Cat 1 and a TS which they didnt and is OR. Anyway, for each system, there is a story to be told based on how it developed, weakened etc and in Lorna's specific case we can say that it straddled the border but that it did not cross.Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your comment about Category 1 and TS, but the evidence of the system weakening to TS strength before reintensifying to C1 is here. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The JTWC does not use the SSHWS in any of its advisories or the tropical storm label as they didnt, which as a result means that we shouldn't say that they upgraded it etc. Have a look for instance at Cyclone Raja or Cyclone Rewa. You will find that we do not directly say that the system was a Cat 1 SSHWS based on the JTWC etc just that it was equivalent to.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: This source states that Extc Lorna was in 93E as of 1/5. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I will concede that the system did not enter the region at tropical cyclone strength, despite what Météo-France's advisories indicate. However, as per the reference provided by Typhoon2013 above, which I included in both the SWIO Lorna section and this article's Lorna section when I wrote them, I think it is clear that the system still entered the Australian region as a tropical low. We still consider Ex-Tropical Cyclones to be tropical systems, and I should note that Météo-France declared the system post-tropical, not extra-tropical. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our hands are tied as the BoM distinctly say in the tropical ckimate note, that the system dissipated just west of 90E during April 30. We also have Lorna moving south-westwards away from the Australian Region in the build up to Reunions final point for Lorna at 89.1E. Also as far as I know a post tropical cyclone is not tropical and that it is also different to RA V's definition of an ex tropical cyclone which can still be tropical at times but is more likely to be extratropical in my experience. As a result, it is not clear that Lorna moved into Aus as a tropical low or that it became one before looking it's tropical characteristics.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meteo-France revised their assessment and brings the system to 89.9E while tropical, doesn't cross the boundary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge. INeedSupport :3 23:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a storm that is not worthy of an article. It has no damages or deaths and lacks significant impacts. This honestly should not have an article. Merge NoahTalk 01:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This storm is not that notable and impactful enough to deserve an article. In other words, this system did completely nothing to land which is why this doesn't need an article. Sandy14156 :) 02:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree. There weren't any interesting things about the storm and barely any impacts on land, if not none. Why would anyone make an article about this storm in the first place? Brandontracker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fundamentally disagree. The system was not just any old cyclone. It was a severe tropical cyclone which brought strong winds to several land areas, including gale-force in one instance, and produced very heavy rainfall in the far-northern Northern Territory. The system also hampered the efforts of shipping operators in getting ports back up and running following Veronica. It generated public interest within Australia due to its proximity to land in the Kimberley region, and due to fears that a repeat of Cyclone Veronica's devastation could have been brewing. This is evidenced by the following articles—just some of the sources which I could find: 1 2 3. Merging this article would be a negative outcome. A significant amount of information would be lost. The existence of this article is not a detriment to the WikiProject, it is not a detriment to Wikipedia, and it is not a detriment to publicly available knowledge. The existence of Wikipedia's notability guidelines are to prevent stub articles from being written due to a lack of information on the system. The article is well-written, well-structured; well-formatted; well-researched; free of grammatical errors, spelling errors and punctuation errors; effectively incorporates hyperlinks to useful Wikipedia pages; and is neutral in its point of view and coverage of topics. It is a genuinely useful, factual, interesting encyclopedic article which is the very best easily accessible detailed overview of the topic anywhere. There are zero benefits whatsoever to any person or any organization that could possibly result from deleting the article. It contains no damaging material, personal attacks, misleading content, factually inaccurate statements, poor prose, or anything at all which could conceivably act to harm anyone or anything whatsoever, and as such, there is no reasonably justifiable cause for deleting it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thing is... as you said, it could have been a repeat of Veronica. If it would have become a repeat, there would be some notability. Coverage in the media happens with practically every storm near land, regardless of whether it poses a threat or not. I did the exact same thing with Hurricane Norman. It isn't that your article is bad, it is just that Wallace itself lacks the notability required for an article separate from the season article. NoahTalk 10:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Noah. @ChocolateTrain: really, a lot of your writing in that article's meteorological history section is needlessly verbose and detailed. Concision is important for readers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it was thought to be a second Veronica, but it wasn't. It actually was just a regular old storm. I agree with Jasper Deng that the Meteorological history was highly verbose and mostly unnecessary. If you cut out the unnecessary parts of the article, the article will be very small. Brandontracker (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge This storm is highly unnoticeable since it does not impact land that much and there's nothing that makes it stick out at all. INeedSupport :3 19:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Wallace was a system that caused little impact, and what impact info does exist can be added to the season page. Like others have said, please don't take this merge discussion personally. All of us editors have had our past works merged or deleted before. And while this article doesn't meet notability standards, it's very well written and sourced. We can definitely use your skills for more notable cyclones especially here in the southern hemisphere! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Not really a noticeable storm at all, only 75 mph for 6 hrs. I’d say Veronica needs a main article more than Wallace, as it’s intensification phase was remarkable, similar to Ernie — which has its own article. EBGamingWiki (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with EBGamingWiki about Veronica having a main article. The only thing about it is that the article could turn out like Wallace's one. Brandontracker (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone, just merge the article. A lot of people agreed to merge the article against the creator of the article himself. Brandontracker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ChocolateTrain: Who cares that it caused severe rainfall in the Northern Territory? People will care if it actually made landfall, but even that people don't really care. Brandontracker (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Ann

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was: No Consensus for Merging. As there is currently no clear consensus (for the proposal) and since the discussion has obviously died out, I am formally closing this discussion. A new discussion can be initiated at a later time if/when editors change their minds on the subject. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work, but Ann just had minor impact on land, no deaths and major damage occurred. Thus the article should be merged. The original work can move back to userspace. --219.78.190.16 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, the storm only dissipated 3 days ago. Ann was a rare off-season storm, and affected several land areas. Let's wait for the final report on the storm, there could be more info out there on the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As Hurricanehink said, Ann was a rare off-season tropical cyclone (the strongest in the Australian region during May since 1997) that made landfall in a populated area as a tropical system. It also affected other regions throughout a relatively long lifespan. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Let's see what we are left with before rushing to make a decision. If this were a storm from multiple months ago, I would understand a merge, but this dissipated quite recently. NoahTalk 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Scope of the article is relatively small and the meteorological history is bloated so it seems like there's more information than there really is. Once that's trimmed down to an acceptable size I'd be more willing to gauge notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not sure if the article should be merged or not, but if there are post-analysis adjustments to the storm like decent damage figures, I will shift to a side. Brandontracker (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Savannah's Indonesian damage

[edit]

Does this incident related to Savannah? Cos the section just said the cyclone affected Java only. --182.239.117.154 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! Yes, I would definitely say that the flooding discussed in that article was caused by Savannah. The tropical low actually formed directly south of Bali, so this is a good source to show the damage there. I have added it into the main Cyclone Savannah article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second merge of Ann

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a merge. In the nearly 10 days since this was initiated, there have been no comments in either support or opposition of a merge. I am hereby closing this discussion as a no consensus. Discussion may be reopened in the future at any time. NoahTalk 03:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an IP had started a merge in May. But that one may be WP:TOOSOON to decide. Almost half a year later, still there is no significant impact of the cyclone in Australia. Those winds and rainfall can be written in the season's section. I'm here to propose a second merge of Cyclone Ann. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third merge of Ann

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for a merge. It has been one month, and there is no support for merge or keep either way. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to propose a third merger for Ann since it never caused any impact in Australia. I strongly request you reply with an opinion because I won't conclude this section. 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:45BD:3B7F:A705:DCD0 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose That is true, except that the editors had made an effort to create a well-done sourced article. As the result, I oppose the merge, as:

1:) The article is not only well-sourced, but focused on the main parts too;

and:

2:) For considering the editors' feelings when the article becomes merged. I mean, will the sources be in the infobox? A well-sourced article with many words should take for consideration.

Hope you understand my decision. Respectfully yours, 👦 09:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018–19_Australian_region_cyclone_season&oldid=1218479495"