Talk:2006 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Track maps

Before we make up track maps for 2006 typhoon season storms we need to think carefully about what the tracks are supposed to show. With older seasons they use JTWC data and the articles use the JTWC designations so there is not an issue (though that will change if when and the proposed guidelines get implemented). However it does cause a problem with this season. The question is, what exactly do the track maps represent? There are a variety of ways we can approach this, each has its problems:

• Use JTWC data for track maps. This would be consistent with other seasons, but would lead to inconsistencies within articles: Tropical Storm Bilis (2006)'s track map would have some points at typhoon strength.
• Use JMA data with the TS/C1 boundary being 65 knots 10-minute sustained winds. This would give internal consistency within articles. However this will make WPac storms seem weak compared to EPac/Atlantic storms. It will also make cross-over storms awkward.
• Use JMA data, but convert the 10-min speeds to 1-min speeds (increase by a factor ~14%). This would give the cross-basin consistency but again would cause problems within articles.
• Use JMA data with 10-minute speeds. Use 10-minute speeds on all track maps converting 1-min to 10-min on all articles. This would give the consistency across basins and within WPac articles. However it would break Atlantic storms, Hurricane Cindy (2005) would have a track map showing peak TS strength.

I think the best solution is to use JMA data converted to 1-minute speeds. The reason for saying that is the color scheme is defined in terms of the Saffir-Simpson scale, which in turn is defined on the US 1-minute average. We should use the JMA in preference to the JTWC as the best track data from the two data sets differs in more ways than just the windspeed thing, one organization may track the storm but the other not at all, 2004's Merbok for example. Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. Consistency between articles is always great, as is having official data. Sure, if you don't mind the conversions, that works great. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Conversions are easy enough, I can tweak the program to do that for me. However, due to the difficulty in obtaining data, I suspect 2006 typhoons will use JTWC advisory data until JMA best track data is available (JTWC advisories are easier to get hold of, and for internal consistency within this article all tracks should have the same source).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the JTWC operational tracks for the 5 JMA named storms. That makes the external consistency straightforward enough. I haven't actually collated JMA operational locations yet, and I'd rather wait until the JMA best track is released anyway. One thing I'm not sure of though, is there any copyright issues that prevent us actually using their data?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

STS Bilis Track Image

I think that the Severe TS Bilis track image has an error because when Bilis reached a peak of 70 mph (or 60 kt), the JMA officially stated that Bilis was a STS. So I was wondering if his track had signs that it was a STS. Alastor Moody _(talk) 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The track represents JTWC data and in any case does not make a distinction between TS and STS.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but isn't RSMC Tokyo the official place where tropical cyclone data come from? Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above, operational JMA data is hard to get hold of by comparison, the transfer will probably be made at the end of the season.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep it as is until the season's over, when we'll have the official best track data. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

When updating the timeline

I've come up with a set of guidelines for the timeline, seeing as how there's so many NHMS's and RSMC Tokyo that name/number storms. This is to simplify it for the reader, to make it obvious that there are different warning agencies/names/numbers, as it stands right now we're getting stuff like "JMA upgrades Bopha (Inday)" etc, when Inday isn't in the official name.

• If the JTWC numbers a storm, not yet named by the JMA, refer to it as "Tropical Depression/Storm/Typhoon 00W" in all its entries.
• If PAGASA names a storm, not yet named/numbered, refer to it as "Tropical Depression/Storm/Typhoon Name" in all its entries.
• If the JTWC numbers a storm named by PAGASA, please refer to it as "Tropical Depression/Storm/Typhoon 00W" - without the PAGASA name - as the main JTWC site does not include the name.
• If PAGASA names a storm already numbered by the JTWC, please refer to it as "Tropical Depression/Storm/Typhoon Name (00W)" where 00W is the JTWC designation, as that is what PAGASA calls their storms on their advisory page ("Tropical Depression Basyang (01W)" for example).
• If the JTWC numbers a TD named a TS by the JMA, please refer to it as the JTWC does on their website - "Tropical Depression 00W (Name)".
• If the JMA names a storm, always refer to it as "Tropical Storm/STS/TY Name" w/out the JTWC or PAGASA names.
• If PAGASA names a storm named by the JMA, always refer to it as "Tropical Depression/Storm/TY -PAGASA Name- (JMA name)" ("Tropical Storm Inday (Bopha)" for example).
• If the JTWC numbers a storm named by JMA, please refer to it as "TS/TY 00W (Official Name)" and not the current "TS/TY -Official Name- (PAGASA name)" as the JTWC's upgrading of a particular storm may not mean the JMA will do the same.

Non-name related stuff:

• Please don't bold downgrades.
• Please don't add Category up/downgrades - it's too difficult to keep up with at the PTS due to more than one scheme, plus the JMA doesn't categorise storms
• Please bold landfalls
• Please bold names of all new storms
• Please bold upgraded storms (eg, "Tropical Storm Saomai upgraded to Typhoon Saomai")
• Please use c. if an estimated time of landfall is known, but it may not be exact
• Please use exact time unknown for landfalls if there is no estimation.
• Please avoid saying stuff like "TY Maria downgraded to TS Maria", just say "TY Maria downgraded to a TS"

I've made/I'm in the progress of making these changes to the main timeline article, and I believe it clears a lot up, as the JTWC may call a storm a TY and the JMA an STS (like Maria, and we'd end up getting "JTWC upgrades TS Maria to TY Maria" when Maria (the name) is not officially upgraded by the JMA - they're upgrading 09W).

Is this fair? Comments? Any idea to make it clearer than it is? Chacor 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, thats a lot. I agree to all the non-name stuff without any real problem. I think what might make things simpler is to give PAGASA entries a lot less significance. Basically only have "PAGASA names TD/TS/TY ..., the same system as (JTWC/JMA designation)". That would reduce the amount of stuff considerably, after all its only the PAGASA name we really care about. The other thing is to make clear which storms are the same. As an example say the JTWC upgrades the system that will become TS Yagi to a TS. Then the JMA line should read "TD (JTWC #) strengthens into TS Yagi". If PAGASA name an INVEST and it later strengthens into a JMA/JTWC storm, the first entry should make it clear that this is the same system previously named by PAGASA. And one question, does PAGASA use JTWC/JMA info at all, I looked at their site and its only TY Juan not TY Juan (Saomai).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote,

Severe Weather Bulletin Number TWELVE (FINAL)
Tropical Cyclone Alert: Tropical Storm "INDAY"{BOPHA}

As you can see, it does refer to the actual name. And that means Inday is no longer active :P

The real thing with the JTWC is I'm bugged at the lines that say things like "JTWC upgrades TS Maria to TY Maria", which isn't "right" because the JMA never did so, and the JTWC doesn't have "jurisdiction" over the name, per se, rather, it's upgrading TS09W to TY09W.Chacor 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out and actually it doesn't say Inday is no longer active, it either means that PAGASA consider it no longer active or it left their AOR. Besides, its still active until the JMA says otherwise. :P By the way, "TD (JTWC #) strengthens into TS Yagi" is correct even if the JTWC have it as a TS. That is because until the JMA upgrade it is a TD, the JTWC number is only included for convenience, as the JMA does not number/name TDs. On the JTWC front,"The JTWC upgrades TS09W (Maria) to a TY" works.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant officially, the name "Inday" is no longer active for this year. Chacor 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

knots?

Why all thes storm's peak winds are in knots? Not all people understand knots. We should do both MPH and KM/H in all of the storms infoboxes. Irfanfaiz 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the official RSMC, as well as the JTWC, uses knots. The PAGASA and CMA storms use km/h. Chacor 11:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think using knots is a mistake in general. The NHC also issue their forecasts and discussions in knots and n miles, its only the public advisories that use mph. The TCRs also use knots. The JMA uses knots as their products are equivalent to the NHC forecast, they are not really designed for public consumption but to be processed by a meteorologist. The JTWC uses knots as their warnings are for the US military, who use knots. I'd say the best approach in the WPac is to drop knots mention and use km/h (mph).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, we should probably continue using knots, IMO - the NHC actually releases info in mph, which is good enough for us to use, but JMA doesn't. Chacor 11:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the JMA do use km, look at the Japanese language site. However, there seems to be the problem that the customary Japanese unit for winds is m/s. I don't see any reason to include knots, two units is enough.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A problem is that these numbers for sustained winds are usually rounded off in knots. For example, the NHC might report 50 kt as 95 km/h (60 mph), when they might mean 48 kt (90 km/h, 55 mph). Does this problem exist with the JMA, we don't know. Chacor 11:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all above but the easiest thing to do is convert them manually. Irfanfaiz 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We have the same problem for the NHC though. Its fairly obvious that the NHC uses knots internally and converts to mph for the public. The TCRs, the recon data and the models use knots. Why do we use mph (km/h) in the Atlantic? That's because that is what people understand. The JTWC will be the same as the NHC. If the JMA reports knot figures, I think we can be on safe ground they do the same too, ultimately theres no purpose to converting a km/h figure to knots.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not converting km/h to knots, rather vice-versa. Do we just use their reading and convert to 95 (even if when the actual reading is taken it's really 90)? I still think just using knots is enough. Chacor 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Readings? Given that all numbers in the WPac are derived from Dvorak (the JMA use a different formula to the JTWC, but they do use the same approach), I'd say that is misleading to call them readings. If we want a WPac article to ever reach FA status we should incorporate km/h into the info (as the regionally used unit, in for example HK) and mph (for the Americans to understand). What is wrong with doing the same as in List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season except swapping the mbar/hPa and mph/km/h to reflect the region? The JMA best track is in knots.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mentioned, if it's possible. Irfanfaiz 12:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Its possible alright: 1 knot = 1.852 km/h and 1 knot ~ 1.15 mph; conversion is easy.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we use central pressure instead of sustained winds for JMACategory?

According to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, it states that all wind speeds are based on a one-minute average. Central pressure values are approximate. From my point of view, it is inappropriate to use 10-minute average into a scale that use 1-minute average. --Microtony 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought it up at the Wikiproject talk a while back. Chacor 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere (I forget where), there was an approximate 10-minute-to-1-minute conversion. We could use that to judge the JMA category, though I am hesitant to do so. —Cuiviénen 23:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It says here that 1-minute averages are approximately 12% higher than ten minute averages. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I said this in the Saomai section, but to convert 10-minute speeds to 1-minute speeds, multiply the 10-minute speed by 1.14. To go the other way, multiply the 1-minute speed by 0.88.[1] --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Saomai image

There is a MODIS image of Saomai but it is taken when the typhoon was a Category 4. Is it worthy to be uploaded? [2] --Irfanfaiz 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say use it unless something better can be found. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Better than an image of a storm at Cat 4, how fussy do you need to be? Just make sure you upload the highest res version WARNING - LARGE IMAGE to commons preferably...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a warning to the above link, it's a HUGE image. Chacor 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria and Bopha Image

Well, I've been roaming aroung the place where Irfanfaiz got his Saomai image, but they don't seem to have a good quality, color picture for both of them, so I was wondering what should we do. Alastor Moody _(talk) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a NASA image of Saomai and Bopha together, it's possible to use that and crop the image to just show Bopha. Maria's can be taken from NRL if need be. Chacor 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, but Bopha seems to be stuck at the very corner of the image, but even if we crop it, it will be low-resolution and when the image was taken, Bopha was more likely a tropical depression at that time. Alastor Moody _(talk) 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also this, from when Bopha had MSW of 58 mph (1-minute). Chacor 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! A three storm's image, now that's very rare. Well, I think we can crop out Maria's and Bopha's image (at best). But I also think we should also bring up the full image to the intro of the season article, just like the 2005 Pacific hurricane season did. Alastor Moody _(talk) 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Alastor that two-storm image can be cropped. If you start from the highest resolution image Bopha is about 4000x4000; that's not low res...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Saomai's intensity

There seems to be conflicting views over how strong Saomai actually was. Jeff Masters says that it was 150mph/910mb at landfall. Surely his opinion must count for something. Pobbie Rarr 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

150 mph is 130 knots, nothing wrong there - the JTWC had that too I believe. Chacor (formerly NSLE) 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait I forgot, this article is using 10-minute averages. Still, what about the 910mb? Pobbie Rarr 12:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NRL and JMA differ quite wildly occassionally. Chacor (formerly NSLE) 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about this, it still looks VERY impressive overland on NRL imagery, and it's still a 976mb/65-knot typhoon. Chacor (formerly NSLE) 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, with 257 deaths from Saomai, the total death toll is over 1000. This may be a destructive season (which is of course, bad news). Alastor Moody _(talk) 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but welcome to China my friend. Death tolls for natural disasters there are rarely below triple digits. Just so you guys know, it was a strong Cat. 4 at landfall, not peak intensity. Peak intensity was 160 mph Cat. 5. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm Images

Several storms in the season seem to have NRL images have others have hi-res. NASA Auqa MODIS images. Well the problem is that I couldn't find that much good pictures for Jelawet, Bilis, and Kaemi so couldn't there be any other NASA images. And also, I did anyone replace that no-good NRL image for Ewiniar when they're was a better high quality NASA image for STY Ewiniar? Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't a NASA image, NRL is fine. No need to change it. Chacor 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get about Ewiniar is the B/W NRL image is from Terra which is one of the MODIS satellites (the high res colour NASA ones). Perhaps the black line in the image made them reject processing at NASA?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do dislike those with yellow/black lines/black areas, they are extremely annoying and can severely spoil a good image. I'm sure NASA has its reasons. Chacor 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should displace Ewiniar's NRL image and ex-change it NASA's MODIS satellite image (like I suggested before). Alastor Moody _(talk) 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to the earlier image. Irfanfaiz 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Intensity problems

Not only are the winds listed in knots, which not many people know how to read but their listed in the 10-min mean. 1 min mean is the most commonly used intensity gauge by all WMO-liscenced agencies. These figures should be changed to their proper intensities. This is drifting towards ridiculous. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no Eric. The WMO standard is 10 minute averages, the US 1 minute average is called the "US" average with good reason - namely only the United States and nations heavily influenced by the USA use it. Only 2 (NHC and CPHC) of the RSMCs use 1 minutes all others and the TCWCs (the official WMO orgs) use 10 minutes.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nilfanion, even that is not true. PAGASA uses 10-minute, and to be fair the Philippines is heavily influenced by the U.S.. All major NWP non-U.S. centres use 10 minute; as far as I know only the JTWC/NWS Guam and the Singapore NEA (the NMHS for us, we actually use JTWC forecasts so it's 1-minute). – Chacor 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

China, as a major NWP non-U.S. centre, also chose not to use 10-minute average. (because the historic measurements were based on 2-minute average)Momoko 07:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm

I was wondering if the central pressure of a storm would be relevant for it to be the strongest storm of a season, since this page gives the pressure while previous seasons just give wind speed. - SpLoT 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Or should I just be bold and change it? Haha. - SpLoT 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pressure is actually the determining factor. The storm with the lowest pressure is considered the strongest in any situation. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous seasons list the wind speed alone. Should we a) list both b) list pressure? - SpLoT 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem with pressure in the West Pacific: the have the strongest storms, no question about that, but satellites are now used to determine the pressure rather than planes. This is not an exact science and it basically gives a round number for each 5-knot intensity level (ex. 100kt, 105kt, 110kt...). These are probably good estimates, but that's all they are; estimates. These estimates are also hard to find while a storm is active because the agencies out in the West Pacific don't give pressure readings on their websites. That's probably why it's been done this way for the West Pacific articles. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"because the agencies out in the West Pacific don't give pressure readings on their websites" - Uhm, yes they do. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. – Chacor 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, we'll assign you that task, Chacor, since you've proven yourself so capable of finding barometer numbers in the darkest corners of the World Wide Web. I trust you won't have any trouble finding the pressures of the storms of this season and last season. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making incivil and sarcastic comments. The JTWC is not the be-all and end-all in this basin or any basin. --Coredesat talk! 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I'm tired of people just hunting for ways to prove me wrong. I'm also tired of users who think it's their job to boss people around. I am not four. I've been here a while and I know what the rules are. Don't tell me what the rules are. If you hairsplit every post I make, I will get irritated at you, that's just the way it is. If I nit-picked everything you said, you'd get pretty irritated too. I was using sarcasm to point out how irrational he was being. It had nothing to do with JTWC. They don't give pressures. I don't think JTWC is God. I don't know how you get that perception. I'm sure you've been sarcastic before and that person didn't leave the room weeping. Let's accept peoples' humanity here. None of us are perfect. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of words you put there. LOL!!! RaNdOm26 12:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

This is something I've always wondered and I've never found a true answer for. Why did Japan stop sending recon flights into typhoons? bob rulz 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Japan never sent recon flights into typhoons, so they never stopped because they never started. The JTWC used to send recon flights into typhoons, but I don't know why they stopped. It wasn't like every second mission was lost or something because as far as I can tell no Hurricane Hunter flight has been lost since Swan 38. It would likely be an interesting search to find out whyt they stopped. Perhaps, and I am speculating here, the recon planes were needed more in the Atlantic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with satellite estimates. Satellite intensity estimates came around in the early 1980s, and 4 years after it began recon flights ended. Maybe they were too much money? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a possibility. And it's my mistake, I thought Japan was the one that sent planes in before. Regardless, my question still stands. Surely they should know that recon flights are more accurate than satellite estimates? I just don't like the feeling that typhoons from the 70s and 80s probably have more accurate intensity estimates than 90s and 00s typhoons. bob rulz 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that JTWC officialy forecasted the typhoon basin before JMA took overs. I think that is the cause. Or maybe JTWC moved their HQ from Guam to Pearl Harbor. --IrfanFaiz 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of where the JTWC's HQ are. The NHC is in Miami and the hurricane hunters flew out of Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS until Katrina and moved to Dobbins ARB in Atlanta. Are they back at Keesler now? Not sure. At any rate. They could just as easily fly recon flights out of Kadena AB. I think it probably is a funding issue. The JTWC falls under the US government and monitors mainly for US interests in the West Pacific. With just a few military bases spread here and there in the Pacific, the risk isn't worth the reward. The US has a lot more infrastructure on the US east and gulf coast then it does in all of the Pacific.--Holderca1 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Holderca just hit it on the head. JTWC and JMA don't use recon planes for one simple reason: money. The Navy doesn't have as large of a budget as it did in the Cold War years and these recon flights are expensive. The US government prefers to spend that money on Hurricane Hunters closer to home. Why should they spend big bucks on storms on the other side of the world? JMA has the same problem. Another problem is range. There's a lot of water out there and there are going to be some storms that you just can't reach. Why spend the money when you can't reach half the storms? It's a shame since most of the strongest storms in the world happen over there and should a record breaker form over there, it may not get measured properly and could go unnoticed. They should put weather buoys out there in stratigic spots so that it might give them a better read on how strong a storm is. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)