Talk:2006 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Storm Names

Wouldn't it be better if we just put the first two lines of names in this article instead of the four lines it has now? It's a bit chaotic right now and I'm sure that not all of the 4 list will be used this year. It just looks much better that way. - Yarrah 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any point to saying "Storm name means something" in the contributing language? That seems like a complete irrelevancy to me, it doesn't matter what the storms name means does it? How its name was assigned is encyclopedic - the naming list covers that, but what is the use of the translation?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, for non-native speakers of the language. The RSMC made a page on it, surely it's of some use... ;) NSLE _(T+C) at 12:04 UTC (2006-05-21)

Non-JMA storms

Obviously calling them "PAGASA TD Agaton" and "JTWC TS 01W" is correct, but it seems little messy to me. I wonder if the best solution is to adopt an "Other storms" section. In the main section list all the JMA-named storms. The the "Other storms" section could start with something like: These systems were monitored by the JTWC / PAGASA but were not officially declared TSs by the JMA. Yes, it isn't chronological order, but it emphasises the unofficial status of 01W. How does this idea sound?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That works, but we should go back and do this for all the years back to 2000. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:39 UTC (2006-06-11)

Having "PAGASA Tropical Depression Agaton" and "JTWC Tropical Storm 01W (Basyang)" looks awfully odd. I guess it could work. -- RattleMan 08:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One problem would be for JMA-recognised TDs - JTWC TSs - where would they go? In the main section? Other storms? Or both, describing them seperately? NSLE _(T+C) at 08:43 UTC (2006-06-11)

Does the JMA actually care about TDs though? I may not be looking in the right place, but all I can find is the JMA best track, which like the NHC one ignores TDs. If we find a source which gives JMA TD data, then we go with the dual approach you mentioned I think.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And in the JMA section, do we still call them "Super Typhoon"s, since that's a JTWC term? NSLE _(T+C) at 08:43 UTC (2006-06-11)

I think we shouldn't, though in the storm's section give mention to the fact the JTWC declared it a STY. We should drop the Super typhoon from the infobox as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

JMA certainly cares about TDs. Six-hourly warnings are issued for all well-organized TDs and 24-hour forecast position is given if the TD is expected to become TS. A serial number is given as well and will appear in the SAREP and best track data. For example, the serial number for Jelewat is 0004. If you go through past warnings issued by JMA, you will be able to find data about 0001 to 0003.

The other unnumbered TDs are similar to what we treat as tropical disturbances and positions correct to nearest degree (like 15N 129E) are given six-hourly.Momoko

Yeah, I noticed that with Jelawat (though if it hadn't reached TS strength it will not be in the JMAs best track data at the end of the year.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines

1. Prior to 2000 the JTWC naming and data takes precedence. From 2000 onwards JMA naming and data takes precedence.
2. If a storm is named by the JTWC, use whatever name is used by the JTWC at its peak, this could be "Tropical Storm", "Typhoon" or "Super Typhoon". If the JMA gives a different label to the storm, mention it in the prose.
3. If a storm is named by the JMA, use whatever name is used by the JMA at its peak, this could be "Tropical Storm", "Severe Tropical Storm" or "Typhoon", but not 'Super typhoon', so Chanchu's section should be "Typhoon Chanchu (Caloy)". If the JTWC gives a different label to the storm mention it in the prose of the section, whether this is disagreement on if the storm is a typhoon or the use of super typhoon.
4. If the storm is not named by the JMA put it in a separate section called "Other storms" (I can't think of a better name). The lead of this section makes clear that the RSMC, that is the JMA, did not consider these storms to be tropical storms. Likewise storms in this section do not count towards the seasonal totals (although damages/fatalities from these storms should be included there IMO).
5. If the JTWC numbers the section is to be called "Tropical Storm 01W (Basyang)" or similiar. If the JMA did monitor the storm as a TD that fact is mentioned in the prose of the storms section.
6. If an INVEST is named by PAGASA, its section heading should be "Tropical Depression Agaton" or similar. The prose of its section should make reference to the fact neither the JTWC or the JMA paid much attention to the system. This is true whether the storm occured in 1996 or 2006.
7. Active storms should be in the main storms section, with the section name being the JMA name. When the JMA is monitoring it as an unnamed depression it should be called "Tropical Depression" followed by the JTWC number and the PAGASA name (if available). The active infobox should use JMA data in preference to JTWC data (if contradictory). If the JMA is not monitoring it but the JTWC is as a TD put it in as "JTWC TD 08W (Henry)". If it is a PAGASA named INVEST call it "PAGASA TD Henry". In both these cases put it in the main storms section until it dissipates, when if it does not get named by the JMA put it in the other section appropriately.

How do these guidelines sound?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Anyone oppose these? --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about if a tropical depression is monitored by Hong Kong Observatory or China Meteorological Administration only? Write something like HKO Tropical Depression, CMA Tropical Depression, or something similar? Momoko

I think include only if they have an official identifier (e.g., "01W" or "Agaton"). NSLE 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For HKO, it had been the long practice not to give self-created identifier to tropical cyclones. A tropical depression (or even tropical storm in some years) is identified by dates if no name is given by JTWC or RSMC. Without an official identifier from HKO doesn't mean a tropical cyclone is insignificant. For example, the "Tropical Storm of 17-20 August" in 1989[1] was analyzed to be a 21m/s (40kt) tropical storm.

For CMA, the numbering system, in my eyes, is really messy. Tropical depressions with Force 7 in the seas near China are numbered as TD01, TD02 and so on. Meanwhile, if a tropical depression becomes a tropical storm anywhere in Northwest Pacific and South China Sea (excluding Gulf of Thailand), identifiers like 0601, 0602, etc are given. Use this year as an example, we had TD01 in the seas south of China. Later, we had TY0601 forming far from China and therefore did not have a TD number. Last month, we had TD02 forming SE of Hainan and then developing into TS0602. It is even more messy that all TD numbers are dropped in the annual report and a new sequential number is given for all tropical cyclones. For example, the storm describe in [2][3][4] had the identifiers TD03 and 0411 operationally and the sequential number 14 in the annual report. Including the identifier will make the the article extremely confusing. Momoko

Mind you the NHC is just as bad; 2005's Subtropical Depression 22 was 22L operationally but was made 23L post-season. There are two types of storms to be considered here. First are active systems; I think they should be mentioned in the main section irrespective of who is tracking them. If it isn't JMA-named use a qualifier like "JTWC TS". Once its gone then move it to the "other storms" section, without the qualifier. In the case of JTWC storms the designation is fine, for PAGASA storms the name is good. If the HKO/CMA (or anyone else) names are nonexistent or messy - perhaps the solution is to use "Unnamed Tropical Storm". If there are multiple storms, which are not JTWC numbered or PAGASA named, use "Unnamed August Tropical Storm". Anything else just gets really messy IMO, the important thing is to keep the JMA (or JTWC pre-2000) storms distinct from the others, as they are the "official" ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The pre-2000 JTWC is not really official. The WMO typhoon committee had never given it an official status. The only official agency agreed upon the WMO typhoon committee members is RSMC Tokyo/JMA. Between 1981 and 1999, the only official identifier is the number in the form XXXX and prior to that, none. Some typhoon committee members like CMA, PAGASA, KMA include the JMA number but did not include the JTWC names in International warnings. While the JTWC name is not official, it is the practice in almost each and every WMO typhoon committee working documents to include the JMA number for a storm, if any.Momoko

The only thing the members have agreed upon is the international typhoon numbers (the XXXX), but they all seem to use their own data for the systems. The reason for using the JTWC names is that this is the English Wikipedia and that is how the storms are usually known in English (as this BBC report demonstrates). For example, an American would look for an article on Typhoon Tip not Typhoon 7920. The older seasons will probably need an explanation paragraph about the unofficial status of the JTWC, but as the JTWC named the storms and they are generally known by those names in English it makes sense to use the JTWC names (and consequently data); noting the differences from JMA data appropriately. Its not perfect, but I think thats the best compromise until the organizations sit down and do a common reanalysis.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Should Agaton and 01W go in that new "other storms" section (since it says it's for storms not officially declared by the JMA), or are they going to stay where they are? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I moved them.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, from 2000 onward, the JMA data should be in the typhoon season infoboxes as well as in the text sections. However, does anyone think it would be better to keep the JTWC information in the infoboxes instead in order for a more accurate comparison between seasons pre- and post-2000? Or, maybe both sets of data could be included. Ev-Man 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if we decide not to include JTWC data, shouldn't we eliminate the "supertyphoons" heading for 2000 onward? Ev-Man 02:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice talking to you guys. I changed the data in the 2000 season's infobox and am going to try to finish the other years tomorrow. Change at will.--Ev-Man 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Slow season

Wow, I think this is one of the most inactive typhoon seasons in recent history (ever?). What's the record inactivity? NSLE 10:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out the 1998 season. It had the latest start in WPAC history. I wonder if the Atlantic will beat the WPAC (named-storms) this year? -- RattleMan 10:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that different from the 2000 Pacific typhoon season yet. —Cuiviénen 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agaton Picture

I found a site with a picture of Agaton, but I don't know if it's useable. [5] Jake52 My talk 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Always assume it's copyrighted unless it's an NOAA or NRL image. NSLE 08:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The solution is simple enough - get the original NASA image (located here orhere) and do the appropriate cropping of the image to show the storm (NASA=PD).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

More consistency?

I was wondering if the intensities could be more consistent? Because for Chanchu, it is from NRL, Jelawat from JMA, and so on... could someone kindly, for the good of wikipedia and more clarity, dive themselves into say, http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/archive/06051506 and dig out information from one site? Another reason for this is that the references are linked back to NRL's and JMA's homepages, and the info about Jelawat and Chanchu aren't there any more - that unisys site should be a good choice, I think. One more suggestion - for intensities, could someone kindly put km/h as well? Knots aren't needed, but km/h is used by many people around the world, it would be good if there was km/h as well, instead of just mph. Thanks. Typhoonchaser 10:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For pressures, we should be using the JMA estimates, as they're the only official estimates in the basin. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Typhoons Hitting N Korea

With Ewiniar headed for North Korea, it got me thinking, "Hey, I've never seen a tropical system make landfall there before." Maybe it is more common than I think (as I do not follow the WPac season that closely), but when/what was the last storm that hit North Korea? How about the last Typhoon? -Winter123 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Typhoon Rusa hit South Korea on 2002 as a minimal Catgory 1 storm, which was another time the Korean Peninsula got hit by tropical cyclones. And also Typhoon Ewiniar was once forecasted to make landfall at N. Korea, but it actually took a detour and hit S. Korea, like just somewhere just south of Seoul. But as future typhoon seasons come by, maybe the Korean Peninusla can get frequently attacked by tropical cyclones since global warming or the rise of sea tempertures are around. Alastor Moody _(talk) 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I really think this page needs cleaning up and its very low-quality. Everything is all over the place-you should put the storms back in order, Split the timeline off to another page.HurricaneCraze32 13:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a discussion above... #Proposed guidelines. Chacor 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell does Typhoon Ewiniar (2006) link to the 2006 Pacific Hurricane season article? Pobbie Rarr 16:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because someone merge/redirected it back to this article but typed in the wrong thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Typhoon Ewiniar page?

Who deleted the Typhoon Ewiniar page? Alastor Moody (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chacor. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't delete it. It was just merged, and for good reason. The storm isn't likely to do much as a tropical storm. If it does, then it can be un-merged. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But then how come Super Typhoon Chanchu has its own page while Ewiniar dosen't, even though they are both Category 4 Super Typhoons in the same year and at the same basin? Alastor Moody _(talk) 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chanchu killed over 100 people and did nearly half a billion dollars in damages. Ewiniar came nowhere near that much damage. —Cuiviénen 01:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I was just helping Wikipedia to expand (although it wasn't a really good article). Alastor Moody _(talk) 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it's more advantageous to improve what we already have to the best it can be. What would be more useful; 2 million poorly-written stub pages or a much lesser amount of good articles worthy of being in a good encyclopedia? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Hurricanehink that good articles make a good encyclopedia rather than stub pages. Alastor Moody _(talk) 02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ewiniar's Image?

Will anyone be getting an image for Typhoon Ewiniar? Alastor Moody (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Here's a good pic, but it's not near peak intensity. Anyone have a good image at its peak? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Earth Observatory image has it at Cat 3, so at a higher intensity but not peak. Interesting how the two NASA sites don't have the same image set.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is at the typhoon's peak just they have trouble knowing the true intensity of the typhoon. By the way, JTWC upgraded it to Super Typhoon on the 4th.Irfanfaiz 06:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And the veimages site is from SeaWiFs and the other one from MODIS.

I have a NRL visible image from when it was near its peak, if you want to use that instead. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can i see the image? Irfanfaiz 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind... Irfanfaiz 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Chanchu

Chanchu and Ewiniar are both super typhoons but why only Ewiniar has a "Super Typhoon" title? Chanchu is a little more intense than Ewiniar. Irfanfaiz 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, neither of them should have the title, as "super typhoon" isn't an official title given by the JMA. I removed the "super" from Ewiniar's name. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I tought of doing that too. Irfanfaiz 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Forecasts

I found forecasts for the 2006 PTS, shall someone add them to the article to make it better? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it right now. —Cuiviénen 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I put it all together on MS Word and then realized that those predictions were for 2005. Fortunately, it's all written up for 2006 now. I'd also never heard of Tropical Storm Risk, but apparently they're a big deal: see here. —Cuiviénen 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I have:

Forecasts of typhoon activity are issued before each typhoon season by researchers at the City University of Hong Kong led by Johnny Chan; and separately by forecasters at Tropical Storm Risk (TSR), run by University College London.

TSR defines the average number of storms per season (1964 to 2004) as 26.8 tropical storms, 16.9 typhoons, and 8.6 major typhoons (storms exceeding Category 3 strength in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale).

Predictions of tropical activity in the 2006 season

Source	Date	Named storms	Typhoons	Major typhoons
TSR	Average (1964–2004)	26.8	16.9	8.6
TSR	August 2005	27.6	17.5	9.4
CUHK	June 2005	29	16	-

Cool. Do you want to add it to the article? Also, if you still have what you wrote for 2005, you should add that, too. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you misunderstood me. That's all for 2005, not 2006. I'm removing it now. —Cuiviénen 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, but does that mean that you can add these forecasts you wrote to 2005? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 02:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Bilis

I read a report from PAGASA that says that Tropical Storm Bilis (Florita) has intensified into a typhoon. Please update accordingly. This is the source: http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/wb/tc_up.html. --Akira123323 ^{Say what? | Track record} 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the official title is "Severe Tropical Storm" by the JMA. Irfanfaiz 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're slightly mistaken there, Irfanfaiz, it's not a "NO", because it deserves a mention in the paragraph that PAGASA considered it a TY. Just not in the title. Chacor 07:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ACE

We should add the ACE section thingy. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How would you calculate ACE? ACE is unofficial in this basin as ACE uses 1-minute sustained winds, and the RSMC for this basin uses 10-minute sustained winds. Even if that was not a problem, the ACE elsewhere takes into account "full advisories". However, the JMA gives advisories every three hours. Chacor 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the JTWC, we could use their data. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The JTWC is unofficial for this basin. Chacor 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! We gotta do something. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

B-class?

Can this be upgraded to a B-class, or should we wait til the end of the season? It's got forecasts, a timeline, all the storms, good organization, and the ACE will (hopefully) be added soon. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, current seasons are only start class because they are not stable. While there is an extremely small chance of there being no more storms in the western north Pacific this year, it is more likely that several additional systems will develop and thus the article will require updating. If an article requires frequent updating because it is a current event, it will not be stable enough to be B-Class. OTOH, when the season is over this article may be pretty close to, if not at, B-Class. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bilis article

This got archived, so I might as well repost it. I just started an article on Bilis, which appears to have killed almost 500 people (source). I can't do this all by myself, since there's a ton of information to be sifted through, so I might need some help. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)