Talk:2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

Locations of advisories

IMD:

Main: India Weather Inference \\ Bulletin \\ Discussion/Outlook \\ Track \\ IMD website Shipping Bulletin \\ All India weather report \\ Satellite Bulletins \\ Special Satellite Bulletin (Active Cyclone)

Other: TCAC Advisory (1, 2) \\ Shipping Bulletin (1, 2) \\ Alternative Outlook \\ Archives

JTWC

Other: Storm 1 \\ ABIO10 \\ TCFA 1 \\ TCFA 2 \\ Best Track

Archives: JTWC (WTIO PGTW)

PABUK crossover likely

BOB01-2019 (PABUK) advisories from India Meteorological Department has started because of a potential landfall over the Andaman islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:8280:9418:1B0:807C:1411:3E38 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Fani article

I've already started a draft article of Cyclone Fani, which can be found at Draft:Cyclone Fani. INeedSupport ^:3 02:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deep deepresion

Hey a dd is forming in bay of bengal and is likely to bring heavy rain in coastal areas Archit12345 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cyclone Hikaa

Since Hikaa (like most landfalling Omani storms) will likely get an article, I cobbled together some advisories and made up a draft article. Once IMD publishes their prelim report, there'll be more info. We'll find out in the next day or two how bad the impacts will be, but I'll gradually add them there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Accumulated cyclone energy

Does the IMD calculate ACE anywhere? Where are the ACE values in the article coming from anyway? If it's from Philip Klotzbach I don't think we should be using it since his calculations are based off the JTWC's operational data (see here) which definitely does not constitute official information. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@KN2731: ACE is completely irrelevant outside Atlantic and EPAC/CPAC as it is based upon 1 minute sustained winds. You can't calculate and compare data with other wind speeds. Noah^Talk 02:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why is it referenced so many times in the lead and season summary? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For that matter the IMD shouldn't be mentioned in the lead of Accumulated cyclone energy in the first place. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I've removed mention of ACE entirely from the article by that reasoning. No reason to leave unverifiable and unofficial information in the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah and KN2731: The IMD does indeed calculate ACE and has put the total of their calculations here and have been included in the annual reports for a few years now.Jason Rees (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

JTWC: 23W (Matmo)

Remnants of Matmo, according to JTWC may form into a cyclone near Andaman and Nicobar island. IMD states a depression is likely for form and my intensify further, but doesn't mention the current low pressure area as "Matmo" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.74.15.10 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Names

@MarioProtIV, @Jasper Deng, @Typhoon2013, @Cyclonebiskit, @Hurricane Noah I am very confused because on the JTWC website, it shows that 23W (Matmo) and on the IMD website shows BOB 04 (Bulbul). Maybe the two warning centers messed up the names. I know that JTWC data is unofficial, but should we put cyclonic storm bulbul (matmo) or just cyclonic storm bulbul in this section? ~ DavidTheMeteorologist🌦❄️🌪 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@DavidTheMeteorologist: No, it needs to simply be Bulbul. The IMD does not recognize remnant lows. Even so, the IMD also stated an LPA formed, meaning it is an entirely separate system regardless of what the JTWC says. Noah^Talk 01:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The JTWC maintaining it as Matmo gives us grounds to include the name, but not as the primary one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We have instances such as Joan-Miriam in which Joan and Miriam are used in their respective articles. I see no reason for this to differ from that. Joan crossed into EPAC as a TS and doesnt have a title of Miriam (Joan). Either we need to change every single instance to match or just leave this as Bulbul. Noah^Talk 03:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Edits from User:103.134.62.18 changed the whole article, with all the storm's max winds were revised. I think it's vandalism but I can't verify cause I'm not in the region. Please check it. Thanks! Peterwu2019 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Peterwu2019 and Hurricane Noah: It is vandalism. In fact, all of their edits are vandalism. Please revert all of their changes on this page. I've reverted their edits on other articles, but I'm not sure that I got all of that stealth vandalism here. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

IMD confusing designations

So we not have our newest system: ARB 08, and the IMD somehow missed ARB 07. We either missed this system or a typo from the IMD, which I hope they will fix immediately. I have checked archived sources from the past few days and I believe, it is more of a typo. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

something is definitely wrong. Pawan was A05 and "07A" was A06. Can't find out what the first advisory at 0900UTC for 92B was numbered. Seen in the wiki article, it stated IMD numbered the system A07 before the 1800PM advisory changed it to A08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:8200:95D0:BDBF:CCFA:2EF5:C2E7 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JTWC never even designated 08A, either. They cancelled their TCFA because they're probably crazy, but nonetheless I think IMD and JTWC are very confused. AC5230 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

AC5230 again. I have a hunch that LAND01's initial designation of ARB03 and Kyarr's designation of ARB03 might have something to do with it.

- AC5230 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jason Rees, Cyclonebiskit, and Typhoon2013: Does anyone have any idea what happened to "ARB 07"? Did the IMD skip the numerical designation for some reason we don't know? Or was there actually a system that we missed? I'm still clueless as to what happened here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: Having looked at the IMDs BT i cant see any system that could be called ARB 07, will message the author of the global tracks to see if he knows anything about it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ARB 08 2019-09-12 0615Z.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Matmo 2019 full track.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Cyclone Maha

It seems that Maha was re-created. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, does anyone think the article should still be kept? I don't see a need in having the article, as it didn't strike land. So, once again I ask, should the Cyclone Maha article be merged? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! An unregistered user (who I suspect is the same as Hurricane boy 50 (talk · contribs), Cyclone boy 420 (talk · contribs), and Typhoon boy 20 (talk · contribs)), 103.134.62.17 (talk · contribs) recreated Maha, and Cyclone Pawan too! Does every storm need to have an article (no)? 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. Literally no reason to have an entire article on a storm with little to no significance. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Cyclone Kyarr

The following discussion 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.

---

Starting merger discussion here as a better alternative to WP:PROD. From Hurricaneboy23's original PROD tag, Unnotable except the fact its strong, no impact on land, fits easily in the 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is a meteorologically important storm and deserves its article on that ground. Noah^Talk 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Support See Talk:2019 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1#Hurricane Pablo. This is similar: strong, but no impact. 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Especially considering storms like Hector have articles, and the fact that such long-lived and strong storms are rare over the Arabian Sea, is enough evidence that this needs its own article. JavaHurricane 10:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Kyarr is suposesdly only one of 7 (8 after Amphan) super cyclonic storms recognised by the modern day IMD. I woudl also be very surprised if there was no impact in any of the nations impacted by Kyarr even though the IMD say that there isnt.Jason Rees (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: the premise that Kyarr caused "no impact on land" is false. A preliminary Google search turns up the following: Flooding appears to have been significant in the UAE and Oman. Arabic sources may reveal more information. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: It did cause some impact on land, just not much. All Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, even Hurricane Lorenzo have articles. This is no different. 🐔Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 12:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose it seems obvious that this is expandable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

How come many other “meteorologically significant” storms that didn’t effect land don’t have articles? Ambali? Halong? Pablo? It’s all the same. This storm has little to even talk about it besides that its “intense”. No point in making an article for a storm that has little to no significance. The WikiProject page clearly states: “Articles can be created on any storm, provided they are reasonably well-written, comprehensive, and generally have more than two paragraphs of information on it in the body of the article. Articles may be merged by consensus, however.” The article is not well written nor has barely enough information to fit in 2 paragraphs. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess the simple answer is that not every so called "meteorologically significant" storm is the same. An off season storm, for example, generally has less to write about than an abnormally strong, long tracked storm. The former can often fit in the season section easily while the latter is less likely to. This article isn't great but it's expanadable as outlined above to the point where I don't think it could fit into 1-2 paragraphs in its season section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

References

To change the name from North Indian Ocean cyclone season to East Indian Ocean cyclone season

The Cyclones coming from Arabian sea towards India are coming under articles West Indian Ocean cyclone season same for South also the Cyclones coming from Indian Ocean is South Indian Ocean cyclone season then why the Cyclones coming from Bay of Bengal which affect East India are North Indian Ocean Cyclone season, why not East Indian Ocean Cyclone season.

Note: there is also no ocean or sea present at North India Shanti.lataa1 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The "North Indian Ocean" is the official tropical cyclone basin that's covered in the article. It is the northern portion of the Indian Ocean, not India. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Most active season

@Chicdat and VantaWiki: I would like to point out to you both that 2019 was not the most active North Indian Ocean cyclone season on record. Firstly, let's make sure we all singing from the hymn sheet and state that this season contained 12 Depressions/Systems, 11 Deep depressions, 8 Cyclonic Storms, 6 Severe Cyclonic Storms, 6 Very Severe Cyclonic Storms, 3 Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storms and 1 Super Cyclonic Storm. So to be clear when looking to prove that 2019 was not the most active season, I need to look for seasons that contain at least 12 systems or at least 8 cyclonic storms. I then look at North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone and see that the following seasons were either tied or superseded 2019 in terms of systems/depressions: 12: 1892, 1893, 1894, 1897, 1958, 1981, 2005, 2006 & 2015 13: 1891, 1898, 1902, 1922, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1955, 1962, 1968, 1992 & 1998 14: 1903, 1916, 1930, 1932, 1942, 1943, 1954, 1956, 1965, 1969, 1976, 1978, 1980 & 2018 15: 1907, 1929, 1935, 1945, 1950, 1951, 1960, 1967, 1970, 1971 & 1985 16: 1923, 1933, 1934, 1940, 1959, 1964 & 1973, 17: 1936, 1946, 1952, 1963 18: 1927, 1947, 1948, 1961, 1966, 1972 & 1977 19: 1937, 1939, 1941, 1944 & 1982 20: 1925 & 1975. I then look at the same list and see that 1982 had 8 Cyclonic Storms while 1893, 1926, 1930 and 1976 had 10. As a result, I reject any attempt to call 2019 the most active on record unless a source can be found from the IMD which backs it up.Jason Rees (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LAND01 2019 track.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)