Talk:Typhoon Nock-ten

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

C5?[edit]

Based on the text from this bulletin from the JTWC, it looks like Nock-ten may have briefly been a Category 5. @Meow: removed my mention of the possibility and I feel like that was wrong as I think it does appear relevant, so should it stay or no? I am aware of the BT, but at least there should be some mention of it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like is original research. JTWC also never claimed that Nock-ten had reached 140 knots anywhere. Moreover, T7.0 of the Dvorak technique does not mean that the intensity must be 140 knots or more. -- Meow 14:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but this line from the bulletin makes a claim that it may have briefly been a C5: "The system appears to have peaked in intensity at 0300z when all reporting agencies reached T7.0 (140 knots), but over the previous three hours, the convective cloud tops have warmed somewhat, leading to lower intensity estimates." --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right I have added the Dvorak part back, but the contents are more conservative this time, for avoiding confusion to readers. -- Meow 15:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the Dvorak part (which by the way, I strongly feel wasn't being used properly and was underestimating the intensity of the storm), but don't mention it could have been 140, since that's too WP:SYNTHESISy for my liking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Meow and YE. JTWC never claimed that Nock-ten reached cat5 intensity and there is no official source for it. That source you have shown though, it was not really confirmed to be cat5. Otherwise if you are excited that Nock-ten was a cat5, just wait for its BT in the next 6-7 months. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow, Typhoon2013, Yellow Evan, and MarioProtIV: The JTWC has made this explicit: the running best track now includes a nonsynoptic best track point affirming 140 knots at 3z on Christmas.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not strange. Mujigae in 2015 is a category 4 because of 115 knots at 03Z. -- Meow 18:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing occurred with Ernesto in the Atlantic in 2012, they added a non-synoptic point of 85 kt just before it made landfall. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well because of those, then I should say that Nock-ten did briefly reached cat5 intensity. I agree with this now since there is a reliable source for it and they did recorded it in. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a cat5, shouldn't the track be updated to show the intensity? MegaEarthquake (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaEarthquake: Yep good point I just realized it just now, hehe. I'll make sure the user who updates TC tracks adds a Cat5 point in its track asap. Thank you! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaEarthquake and Typhoon2013: Im afraid we will not be able to update the map to show that Nockten was a 5, since as things stand it was only one in a non-synoptic point.Jason Rees (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]