Jump to content

Talk:List of tropical cyclone records

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

Rename

[edit]

There seems to be a bit of an overlap between here and List of notable tropical cyclones. Perhaps rename this to List of tropical cyclone records, which is what it seems to be functioning as. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's focused on that, serving as a condensed version. I'll rename it. It also fits weather records and tornado records, extreme was simply what the BAMS article was named and is a commonly used term in the field. Evolauxia 07:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in this page might be interested in this discussion on the WPTC talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

WP:MOSDATE. Please don't pipe the dates like this because of date preferences. For example, "[[April 8]] - [[April 10|10]]" turns out normally for those whose date prefs are set to the U.S. format ("April 8 - 10"), but not for those on the UK format ("8 April - 10"). – Chacor 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S./Atlantic bias

[edit]

Any particular reason for basin-specific records, only Atlantic records are listed? Also, the sole source being used right now is definitely not enough. It's also not up to date (Gamede broke the record for 72-hour rainfall in February 2007). – Chacor 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm not saying it should be removed, I'm saying that if Atlantic records are there then other basin's records should be included too. – Chacor 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Tip

[edit]

This page states that winds extended 1380 miles from the centre of Tip - i.e. its radius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Tip gives that distance as the diameter. One of them must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.54.145 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy

[edit]

The Hurricane Sandy's immense size broke the record of Tip?-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉TalkContribs 06:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sandy's maximum size while being tropical was 945 mi. At peak intensity, Tip was a 1,380 mi-sized typhoon. ABC paulista (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Hudhud

[edit]

Cyclone HudHud had Most intense (lowest central pressure) 960 mbar (hPa); 28.35 inHg. So I Updated the Table. here the source:http://www.lenseye.co/2014/10/13/lens-eye-exclusive-cyclone-hudhud-effect/ Ram nareshji (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasnt the most intense or the lowest central pressure ever recorded. That honour belongs to Tip atm.Jason Rees (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction for the Costliest storm

[edit]

Katrina is noted here. However, the table notes Katrina as the second costliest for the Atlantic basin, in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#Global_warming KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina is the costliest based on actual dollars. The 1926 hurricane is based on wealth normalization, which takes into account inflation and population increase. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most poleward hurricane

[edit]

How far poleward has a hurricane ever got? 32ieww (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 32ieww (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tropical cyclone records. 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) 00:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of tropical cyclone records. 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) 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tropical cyclone records. 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) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wind speed for Labor Day and Cuba considered reliable but Typhoon Nancy is not.

[edit]

Why is Typhoon Nancy's 215 mph winds not listed on here alongside Patrica's, but nobody has a problem with the hurricanes from the 1920s and 1930s that might be overstated as well?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fruitloop11: JTWC, the agency that operated recons on the Western Pacific at the time, admited themselves that their sampling method wasn't accurate and led to winds overestimatives between the 1940s and 1960s, thus making them unreliable. Since the other agencies didn't do the same, we may consider their data realiable. ABC paulista (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to note is that the hurricanes you refer to @Fruitloop11: have been re-analysed by the National Hurricane Center to make the wind estimates more reliable.Jason Rees (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is Nancy should be included as well. When it comes to wind speed. Also there is no 100% way of knowing if the ones from the 1920s and 1930s are accurate. It's just a modern hypothesis.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fruitloop11: It's all about Verifiability and Reliability. Both JTWC and NHC are considered verified and reputable sources, so all their info and data might bbe considered reliable here, unless cited otherwise. However, in Nancy's case, it's well documented that there were constant overestimations in wind speeds from typhoons between the 40s and 60s because of their sampling method, thus making their records unreliable (and we shall consider them as such). The same assesment was not made for the 20s and 30s hurricanes, so we must follow what the RSMC says and cosider them reliable. ABC paulista (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, if two people commit a crime and one confesses to being guilty and the other one doesn't that doesn't mean that the person who didn't confess is automatically innocent. Also not all of JTWC says it's unreliable just a scientist from Beijing named P.G Black. It's ludicrous Nancy isn't included based on someone not agreeing with the way people measured wind speed back in the 1940s-1960s, when it's been done the same way for hundreds of years.Just my thoughts on this you don't have to agree.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fruitloop11: First of all, that's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCE we can only judge if a overall source is reliable or not, but we don't have much freedom to judge which info on it is actually realiable and which isn't, this attrirbution given mostly to the source itself. Also, you are wrong about the method being the same, since they didn't have much dropsondes back them and, according to the Dr. Hugh Willoughby, former head of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division, relied mostly on Doppler radars or even subjective visual estimations when the radars didn't work properly, agreeing that Nancy's estimations are unreliable. Even JTWC published a study on their own Best Track's site, which says that "Systematic observations of tropical cyclones are of poor quality when compared with those of middle-latitude cyclones, especially before routine satellite imagery was made available in the early 1960s", even going further saying that "the authors rate the 1985-2000 best-tracks to be of high quality and urge users to use older data with caution". ABC paulista (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird because according to the Wikipedia article on Anemometer "The anemometer has changed little since its development in the 15th century. So either the JTWC scientists from the 1940s-1960s were completely incompetent or using equipment from the Stone Age. Maybe they were using an ancient Japanese method from the 11th century. Also "especially before routine satellite imagery was made available in the early 1960s" Nancy is from the early 1960s so that doesn't make sense. Keep in mind Nancy had category 5 winds for 5 1/2 days so they had to be pretty strong to last that many days. NOAA can only give so much info on it due to the fact they didn't exist until 1970, and hadn't seen a cyclone with that speed until Patricia. So I could see why they would be doubtful up until that point. Maybe they can re-analyse the storm like they have done with other storms to tell the weather community what the true speed was if not 215 mph. Until then I will still see it tied with Patricia even if wikipedia doesn't.Cheers--Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fruitloop11: About Nancy, it happened on 1961 but constant geostationary satellite imagery only started on 1966, so the timeline makes sense. Also, because of this overestimation issue, it's very doubtful that Nancy really stayed as a Category 5 Typhoon for so long, probably it had category 5 for a much shorter time period thann what the best track shows. But unlike with the maximum winds, who we have a proper claimer for that record (Patricia), no other cyclone even compare on consecutive days with Category 5 winds, so we have to mantain Nancy there, not fortetting to put this message to adressed this issue: "It is believed that reconnaissance aircraft overestimated wind speeds in tropical cyclones from the 1940s to the 1960s, and data from this time period is generally considered unreliable. Consequently, Typhoon Nancy may not have sustained Category 5 winds for such a long duration". Remember that some people that worked in other older agencies took part of NHC formation, and they have acess on all their data, so they certainly know much more about their techniques than us. Also, keep in mind that even JTWC itself puts into question the quality of their own data, so it's hard to argue against the very same agency that sample these data at that time. ABC paulista (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winston

[edit]

@NONOCHANG2013: According to a reanalysis conducted by the FMS and published on the SPEArTC, the Best Track for the South Pacific Ocean, Winston made landfall with 886 mbar, not 884 mbar. Do you have any realiable source that state otherwise? ABC paulista (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double check IBTRACS, Speartc as the author keeps reminding me is not the official BT for SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked Nadi's TCR on Winston and it says that the centre passed over the southern part of Taveuni. I also double checked the BT Data and it shows that Winston's centre was only just off Taveuni when it reached peak intensity. As a result I think we should consider 884 to be the record.Jason Rees (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Tip might not be the largest tropical cyclone

[edit]

i was wondering why no one has mention this yet but... Typhoon Winnie in 1997 appeared to have a diameter of 1460 miles wide? while tip was 1380 miles wide.

Typhoon_Winnie_(1997)

here is the link for this proof?

http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/cgi-bin/dt/search_name2.pl?lang=en&basin=wnp&lt=w&sort=max_gale_diameter&stype=number&order=dec

i would like to know more about this strange ... issue ... this has been bothering me for weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshoctober16: The WMO's opinion trumps that of the JMA's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tropical cyclone records. 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) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Precision with Metric Conversions

[edit]

@Jasper Deng: How come it is important to limit the mph and km/h units to multiples of five, when doing so severely compromises the accuracy of the measurements? I can understand doing so in body text and even in storm infoboxes, but when referring to records, the importance of precision outweighs the importance of rounding to multiples of five, IMO. I also think that we should utilize Template:Convert in this article because many of the values were erroneous by a significant amount without it. --Undescribed (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we need to be consistent with our other articles; when discussing records, Jeff Masters also follows this convention. It is unfortunate that m/s usually cannot be treated this way, but since we don't use that unit elsewhere in WPTC we can keep it a direct conversion. The other units should be consistent with our articles so readers do not get confused by seemingly conflicting values.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most (if not all) meteorological warning centers round wind speeds in mph and km/h to the nearest multiple of five, which is why this article follows those conventions. — Iunetalk 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert template is fine to be used assuming it provides the correct values - this is hardcoded into the convert template by adding |round=5.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compensating minimum pressures for differences in basins

[edit]

Typhoon Tip was the most intense cyclone by minimum barometric pressure worldwide, with a minimum barometric pressure of 870 millibars. However, this does not take into account differences in barometric pressures between basins. The pressure of the entire Northwest Pacific basin is lower than that of the North Atlantic basin, a fact noted when using the Dvorak technique to estimate storm intensities (Look at the bottom of the table.). The pressures (in millibars) given are:

a1 (North Atlantic pressures) p1 (Northwest Pacific pressures)
1009 1000
1005 997
1000 991
994 984
987 976
979 966
970 954
960 941
948 927
935 914
921 898
906 879
890 858
873 841

Linear regression gives p1~1.1871446038×a1−196.745240359 with r2=0.9995 (r=0.9997), which indicates a strong correspondence. If Typhoon Tip, the most intense (by lowest minimum barometric pressure) typhoon in the Northwest Pacific Basin is compared with Hurricane Wilma, the most intense (by lowest minimum barometric pressure) hurricane in the North Atlantic Basin, Hurricane Wilma actually has the lower minimum barometric pressure relative to the basin. If compared using the Northwest Pacific scale, Wilma's minimum barometric pressure of 882 millibars in the North Atlantic basin would correspond to 850.316 (which can be rounded to 850) millibars in the Northwest Pacific Basin, which is twenty millibars lower than Tip's minimum barometric pressure. If compared using the North Atlantic scale, Tip's minimum barometric pressure of 870 millibars in the Northwest Pacific basin would correspond to 898.581 (which can be rounded to 899) millibars in the North Atlantic basin, which is seventeen millibars higher than Wilma's minimum barometric pressure. Therefore, Wilma actually had a lower minimum barometric pressure than Tip relative to the basin. Also, there might be a storm in another basin that when differences among basins are compensated for, has a lower minimum barometric pressure than Wilma. Even if Typhoon Tip remains listed as the most intense tropical cyclone by minimum barometric pressure, I believe that the point that I have just brought up at least deserves a footnote. I also think that the same thing should be done for lowest barometric pressure at landfall, which is currently listed as Cyclone Winston. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Nth User: I'm sorry, but we cannot consider including this. "Linear regression" -- not only is it not established that that is the best model (why not a nonlinear regression? This is part of why data science is an active subject of research) but it is original research. Beyond the Dvorak relationship (which itself has been debunked; the NHC no longer uses it, instead using the Dvorak technique to use winds and then use a different pressure-wind relationship), all of what you are saying here is unsourced and cannot be considered for inclusion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Longest distance traveled by tropical cyclone

[edit]

As "Longest distance traveled by tropical cyclone" record holder is cited Hurricane John (1994) with the distance traveled 11 530 km. However, there are at least two problems with that.

First, the article Hurricane John (1994) gives another number: 13 280 km. That would be probably the result of the poor metric conversion, because both numbers correspond roughly to 7165 miles, but the first number counts with standard miles, second number with nautical miles.

Second, there are contradicting sources. This source from NOAA shows as recold holder not John , but Typhoon Ophelia from 1960 with distance traveled ~ 13 500 km.

Thoughts? --Vachovec1 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source cited in this article where 11530km for hurricane John comes from it looks like they wrote "miles" intending to mean "nautical miles" (Hurricane Faith is also listed as 6,850 miles in that source but 6,850 nautical miles elsewhere) so I think the correct number for hurricane John is 13 280 km (or 13180 km from the NOAA source) rather than 11 530 km and the page should be updated. The archived source you linked has Ophelia as the record holder but the current version of the page doesn't list Ophelia at all so barring a different source I wouldn't include it. MDDevice (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We may assume that the NHC does not count the path travelled by a cyclone that has transformed into a extratropical storm, since this is a record for tropical cyclones.
Also, the very poor metric conversion by NOAA is misleading. Nautical miles should not be shortened to "miles". I'm writing to them about the issue. The actual record should be 13180 km according to NOAA, which is equal to 7116 nautical miles. Arizona State University's "WMO record" wrongly cited the data and it becomes 13280 km (which actually equals to 7170 nautical miles instead of 7165 nautical miles). Ustczyh9 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's fixed. 13180 km is agreed. Ustczyh9 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the conversation with Dr. Cerveny, who is in charge of the WMO archive website, I found that there might be possibility that the NOAA record is also a typo. The actual number of distance traveled by John should be 13,810 km which is coincidentally similar to my estimation from the best track data. I need to verify that from NOAA website administrator. Ustczyh9 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Smallest Eye Record Tied or Broken

[edit]

Super Typhoon Hagibis had an eye around 2 miles wide on radar from edge of clearing to edge of clearing, as is the standard for measuring the eye width. There was a tweet specifically focused on this with a screenshot showing the measurement, but I can't seem to find it right now. If this is confirmed it may tie or break Wilma's record. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source

[edit]

One of the entries is sourced to the International Climate Science Coalition, a climate change denialist organization. The author is denialist Tad Murty. Surely, there is a better source for this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Freddy

[edit]

Freddy is now the longest lasting cyclone. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CyclonicStormYutu yes 203.163.245.98 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CyclonicStormYutu It's not, because it didn't recieved advisories between February 27 and March 2. But it will surpass John if it survives until thursday. ABC paulista (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MFR Best Track Image Tracking HurricaneEdgar 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still dubious how the RSMC treat these incomplete track points between February 27 1800 UTC and March 2 0600 UTC. ABC paulista (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to BoM's, the agency also revised the formation of Freddy from February 6 to February 4. HurricaneEdgar 17:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are going to be a lot of ifs and buts associated with Freddy & the longest-lasting TC record, as we have to ask ourselves does the time below TS intensity count for the record? Should the time it spent over land as a Land Depression count as it was still tracked by RSMC La Reunion in their ITCZ bulletin? As a result, I would rather we waited until our sources state that it was the longest TC on record before we declared it to be the longest TC on record.Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were right. According to some sources, the formation occurred on February 6th (from the JTWC). I think we need a source to prove that Freddy became a long-lived cyclone. HurricaneEdgar 00:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane John (WPAC+EPAC) counts the time as a tropical depression (as NHC designated it). Thingofme (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WMO have announced that they will be conducting an investigation into the longest tropical cyclone on record after Freddy has dissipated. As a result, I would strongly suggest that we wait until the results of said investigation, since there are too many variables in play. For example @Thingofme: has correctly noted that John's record includes its time as a tropical depression. We have to remember though that not every warning center has the same standards for naming or for what is and isn't a tropical depression. Jason Rees (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The JMA and MFR criteria for a tropical depression is lower than the NHC criteria. Thingofme (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we need to wait for the WMO on the matter, since their methodology seems to be unknown for us, since we don't know how much they consider the RSMC data on it, and their record-keeping seems to be outdated, like the "Smallest Eye", "Largest Eye" and "Smallest tropical cyclones" seem to be, for example. I think that, as long as we have reliable sources on the matter, we're good to go, and should only disregard it if the WMO directly states that their findings disagree with this record. ABC paulista (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the distance travelled by cyclone Freddy is approaching John's record. I don't think this data is difficult to obtain. If WMO has a good standard, the list of farthest travelling tropical cyclone should be nice and clear. Ustczyh9 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about systems like Cyclones Katrina and Victor–Cindy? If the period of the system strength dropping to depression is counted then this also should be? C933103 (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Katrina and Victor-Cindy were two distinct systems, so their time existing are counted separately from each other. ABC paulista (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Tropical Depression in North West Pacific.

[edit]

Yes, a tropical depression formed just above the equator in an inhomogeneous position between the JMA and the JTWC. While the JMA thinks it's in the Northern Hemisphere, the JTWC says it's in the Southern Hemisphere, has it broken the record for closest to the equator set by Tropical Storm Vamei in 2001? Bóng Ma - Talk 02:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeb, that is right. You can read here. Nguyễn Quốc Anh (1248) (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to JMA, the RSMC for that basin, it formed 2.0N, farther north than Vamei and other systems. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But now it went to 0.2 N or 0.1 N CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of JMA ever stating that it went south after forming. ABC paulista (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ACE of Freddy is higher than 83

[edit]

The actual ACE of Freddy is 85.9. 2601:247:C500:43E0:E8B1:92F9:1076:8331 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the source they are using for ace is based on CSU. Which doesn’t take into account overrides, resulting in the ace being lower than truth. Thehappygregwx (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tropical_cyclone_records&oldid=1216796919"