Talk:2015–16 South Pacific cyclone season

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

April[edit]

20P.Amos - Tropical Cyclone, Category Three
Best status from NRL: 90kts 956mb
Best status from RSMC: 80kts 965hPa
90P.INVEST first appeared 2016-04-15, 0700z @ 13.9°S 174.3°E
Tropical Disturbance 17F from RSMC 2016-04-13, 2100z @ 12.0°S 176.0°E
MEDIUM from ABPW10 2016-04-15, 1330z @ 14.5°S 175.0°E
Tropical Depression 17F from RSMC 2016-04-16, 0800z @ 16.0°S 178.1°E
TCFA from WTPS21 2016-04-18, 0400z @ 16.1°S 176.9°E
JTWC designates as TC 20P from RSMC 2016-04-20, 0300z @ 13.1°S 178.2°W
Tropical Cyclone Amos, Category One from RSMC 2016-04-20, 1200z @ 12.8°S 179.8°W
Tropical Cyclone Amos, Category Two from RSMC 2016-04-21, 1200z @ 12.8°S 178.9°W
Tropical Cyclone Amos, Category Three from RSMC 2016-04-22, 0300z @ 12.5°S 177.1°W

RSMC Nadi Marine Bulletin

2016-04-14, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-15, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-16, 0800z // 1800z
2016-04-17, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-18, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-19, 0600z // 1900z

RSMC Nadi Tropical Disturbance Summary

2016-04-13, 2100z
2016-04-14, 0900z // 2100z
2016-04-15, 0900z // 2100z
2016-04-16, 0900z
2016-04-17, 0000z // 0900z // 2300z
2016-04-18, 0600z // 2100z
2016-04-19, 0900z // 1800z
2016-04-19, 0600z // 1900z

RSMC Nadi Gale / Storm / Hurricane Warning

2016-04-20, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2016-04-21, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2016-04-22, 0000z // 0300z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2016-04-23, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z
2016-04-24, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z

RSMC Nadi Tropical Disturbance Advisory

01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // 06 // 07 // 08 // 09 // 10
11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // "15" // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20
21 // 22

JTWC Tropical Cyclone Warning

01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // 06 // 07 // 08 // 09 // 10
11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 (Final)
91P.INVEST - Tropical Depression
Best status from NRL: 25kts 1003mb
Best status from RSMC: 1002hPa
91P.INVEST first appeared 2016-04-20, 1300z @ 14.9°S 158.3°W
LOW from ABPW10 2016-04-20, 0600z @ 15.0°S 159.2°W
Tropical Disturbance 18F from RSMC 2016-04-20, 0900z @ 15.0°S 156.0°W
Tropical Depression 18F from RSMC 2016-04-25, 1800z @ 23.0°S 138.2°W

RSMC Nadi Marine Bulletin

2016-04-21, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-22, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-23, 0600z // 1800z
2016-04-24, 0600z // 1900z
2016-04-25, 0700z // 1800z

RSMC Nadi Tropical Disturbance Summary

2016-04-20, 0900z // 2200z
2016-04-21, 0900z // 2200z
2016-04-22, 0900z // 2100z
2016-04-23, 0900z
2016-04-24, 0000z // 0900z // 2100z
2016-04-25, 1200z
2016-04-26, 0100z // 0900z
2016-04-27, 0000z (Final)

RSMC Nadi Gale Warning

2016-04-25, 1800z
92P.INVEST
Best status from NRL: 25kts 1004mb
92P.INVEST first appeared 2016-04-24, 0600z @ 17.6°S 155.1°W

Location of advisories[edit]

RSMC Nadi

Marine Bulletins (NB wind speeds in this bulletin are PREDICTED, not actual)
Tropical Disturbance Summary
Tropical Disturbance Advisory
International Marine Warnings
Cyclone Gale/Storm Warnings
Cyclone Hurricane Warnings
Cyclone Track Maps
3-Day Tropical Cyclone Outlook

TCWC Wellington

Cyclone Warning
Marine Weather Bulletin for Subtropic
Marine Weather Bulletin for Forties
Marine Weather Bulletin for Pacific
Marine Weather Bulletin for Southern

Special Weather Bulletins

Fiji
Fiji & Rotuma
Northern Cook Islands
Southern Cook Islands
Kiribati
Niue
Tokelau
Tonga
Tuvalu
Wallis and Futuna
Samoa
Solomon Islands
French Polynesia
New Caledonia

Other links

Tropical Disturbance Advisories Archives
Unisys Archives
GMDSS
APECDI
WX Trop
MT Archive
TCWC Wellington

JTWC:

ABPW10
Cyclone 1 \\ Cyclone 2 \\ Cyclone 3
Best track
Archives

850 knots[edit]

Hi, just to mention Nadi's Disturbance Advisory A47 indicated that Ula had sustained winds of 850 knots. Please help confirm it is a typo.Damien4794 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its a typo and was meant to read 85 knots. This is confirmed by looking at the hurricane warning issued at the same time.Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13F[edit]

As far as I can tell 13F was only called a Tropical Depression on the Marine Weather Bulletin, rather than the Tropical Disturbance Summary. Barring a mention of it being a Tropical Depression in the Fiji Islands Climate Summary, I think we have to treat it as a Tropical Disturbance since the more specific analysis is on the summary.Jason Rees (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same has too be true with 18F since it was only called a tropical depression, on one marine warning and the following summary called it a disturbance.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana[edit]

@Jason Rees: I feel that you are being too arbritary about Tatiana because, altough spending little time on SPAC, it still has more info about it than other storms, like 07F, Yalo or Zena, and was above TS status per FMS (even issued advisories). As I remember, the consensus was to include cyclones that were neither recognizer per official RSMCs and/or TCWCs of their respective basins nor cyclones that never achieved status above depression/disturbance/low and have not enough info on an Other Storm section, and pretty much all season articles contain infoboxes about storms that reached at least TS status, regardless the amount of info is presented about tha storm (even if NONE info about the storm is given). So, I don't see why Tatiana should be an exception when we have infoboxes like Unala's, Enrique's and BOB 07. ABC paulista (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall us having a consensus on what goes into Other Storms especially on short-lived tropical storms, but in Tatiana's case I strongly feel that the info presented in this article about Tatiana is better presented and more relevant to the Aus portion of its life. I also feel that when this article is developed further, that Zena and Yali will have more then enough information to justify their own infoboxes. I can see no reason why Unala's, Enrique's and BOB 07 should have full infoboxes when the articles are developed further.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beacause they count to the season totals. Normally northern hemisphere agencies count systems that reached at least TS status, and southern hemisphere one count ones that reached at least TC status (except Mauritius, that also use TS status). I feel that, retrieving their infoboxes would leave the impression to the reader that they weren't official and don't count to the season totals, which would be obviously misleading and bad. We have plenty of short-lived storms, like Hana, even some intense and long-lived ones have no info, but they all have infoboxes, and I feel that it is alright as long as they were counted.
For Tatiana's case, I feel that it's meteorological history could be developed further since FMS issued six advisories for it, it seems that Tatiana's case is very similar to Jasper's, and like Jasper I think that Tatiana's info could be expanded. ABC paulista (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly feel that we would not leave the impression, that they do not count for the region by removing the infobox and moving them to Other Storms. In fact I strongly think that we are enhancing the readers experience, by moving these systems to Other Storms especially if we have big articles like the Pacific typhoon seasons. I also feel that we would be teasing the reader by not mentioning what happened in brief to the system in the other basin. Also I would disagree with your opinion that Nadi's six storm warnings could be used to expand the section, since the story is told in a decent way already and the warnings contain no major meteorological information. In fact Nadi issued no Tropical Disturbance Advisories on Tatiana. Jasper is a totally different kettle of fish to Tatiana since it had impact in New Caledonia and Tropical Disturbance Advisories from Nadi, but I would not hesitate to move it to Other Storms if there is not a lot of information on it.Jason Rees (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: you're bluntly ignoring that we use the infobox scheme for at least a decade, so readers are more than well used to them, but the Other storms sections are something relatively new, and up until now we only included unofficial or weak non-nameable storms on them. People are used to these conventions, so changing that now without a major revolution in all season articles would only cause confusion and give misinformation. That would not, by any means, enhance the readers experience because we would be priving them to vital stats (highest wind, lowest pressure, time of formation and dissipation) of named, counted storms that aren't easily accessible (RSMC's non-NHC data are pretty hard to find), and we would be giving false info in other basin articles (like in 2015-16 AUS season, that we are saying that Tatiana dissipated on February 14, but it officially dissipated a day earlier and it crossed to SPAC two days earlier, never coming back. Remember: FMS, BoM, Jakarta, Port Moresby and Wellington don't count the subtropical stages of a cyclone like NHC or Meteo-France do). And "teasing" the reader makes no sense whatsoever, that's completely baloney and simply doesn't exist an argument that support this absurdity. And you forget that a full report on storms will be launched by FMS and other agencies in the next TC conference, that will give us more info about the storm for us to expand its section, like happened to many other storms in the past. But still, relegating Tatiana to a unimportant section now and giving false and unsupported info about it on AUS article is only a disservice for Wikipedia. ABC paulista (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully @ABC paulista: what is absurd is that we have a full section for a system that survived in the basin, for less than 36 hours that did not cause any impacts but is named when we have the seasonal effects sections that contain the met details. In fact if we followed your thoughts through and gave each system that is named or counted towards the season we would have 4 different sections on Raquel, none of which would provide much information on the system. If this means we have to have a major shake up off all the season articles then so be it. I would be very surprised if Nadi issues a report on the season as a whole, since they haven't for a Pacific few years now and even then I suspect it will not contain much information on Tatiana that would be useful to expand the section out with. I also totally reject your argument about providing "false info in other basin articles" especially in this case where Taitana barely moved into the SPAC and did not even move off 160E. In fact if you look at the AUS BT database you will find that Tatiana degenerated into a subtropical low at 1800 UTC on on 160.0E. If you also look at the dates the BoM provides on the report overview page you will find that they include the time it spent in the SPAC in the dates. Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Jason Rees: but your Raquel examnple makes no sense, because Raquel don't count for this season totals since it formed at the end of the previous season (it's like saying that Zeta should be included on 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, or Nine-C should be included on 2016 Pacific hurricane season, which is wrong) and on 2015-16 SPAC it never attained a category beyond depression. I believe that ALL systems that count for the season totals should have a infobox, regardless the amount of info there is available for them. If they count for season, they are relevant enough since they are accounted for records, statistics and reports. About BoM, yes they include FMS points in their BT, just like NHC BT includes CPHC's ones, and in both cases that hold no meaning at all since they still have their own authorities inside their boundaries. RSMC Nadi is publishing its report in TC conferences not by itself, and Tatiana had some impact inside SPAC basin, what could be developed further and also we could add some JTWC data that doesn't conflict with FMS one. I will only favor removing Tatiana if a major shake up off all the season articles happens before moving up Tatiana, to pass the impression that that was a change in the project as a whole, not only something ponctual and misunderstanding-prone. Anything else will only sound that you're being negatively biased towards Tatiana and being a little hypocritical. ABC paulista (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tatiana is an unusual case. It was active at the same time as Winston, which is likely what this season will be remembered for. If Winston or Tatiana influenced each others' tracks at all, then Tatiana should get a full section. The "Other Storms" section doesn't have set rules - it depends on the season, the storms, whether the weak storms caused impacts or not, and how best to present the information. We're not doing our readers a favor by insisting on hard set rules that are arbitrary. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that something called "padronization" is of utmost importance when dealing with an encyclopedia. Of course there are cases that some exceptions are necessary, but I don't feel that this is the case. Exceptions should be exceptions, only made in case of being extremely necessary.ABC paulista (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that term, but I disagree. The average reader isn't likely to notice many differences between each season article, especially as we have uniform standards for infoboxes, content therein, track maps, storm images, whatnot. We developed "Other storms" as a way of avoiding needless infoboxes for short-lived TD's and storms. I believe that ALL systems that count for the season totals should have a infobox, regardless the amount of info there is available for them. - I think this is a short-sighted policy. We have plenty of storms in old Atlantic seasons that don't have an infobox, as we have the extreme example of single-point storms. The #1 thing that matters is how the information is being presented to the reader. And I still haven't gotten an answer about Tatiana influencing each other - if they have, then it makes sense to have it next to Winston's section. If not, and it's short-lived enough to be cumbersome having an infobox, then it works fine having it in OS. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no evidence to suggest that Tatiana was influenced by Winston.Jason Rees (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Padronization = standardization, and I think that those old single-point storms would constitute "extremely necessary exceptions". It's true that Tatiana probably didn't influence Winston, but it cause some surge on New Caledonia, that is inside SPAC.
The source you cite for the impact/storm surge is a model forecast and since the amounts are so minimal it does not prove that it had any impact on New Caledonia.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2015–16 South Pacific cyclone season. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015–16 South Pacific cyclone season. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Citations[edit]

I have been looking through this article and I have notice a lot of missing citations. I have since added the missing citations template to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBlazeCat (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Winston[edit]

The track is outdated. Please revert to the earlier version SpicySweets (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpicySweets: I would love to know how the track map implemented in Winston's article is outdated, when the track that was implemented reflects the consensus that was achieved to make the colours more accessible etc over a year ago now.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the map with the new colors used one of the older versions of the file, and not the newest. However, I will not revert the track that already existed again because it does not reflect Wikipedia's new colors. SpicySweets (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpicySweets: WP:SOFIXIT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015–16_South_Pacific_cyclone_season&oldid=1211191239"