Template talk:Leading tropical cyclones

Thoughts

Should we really consider the S-Atl, given there's no official warning centre? All measurements are unofficial, I'm not convinced we should add it. For the other basins, you'd need to check to make suree no errors have been committed, but I can confirm Ioke.

Chacor,

At this stage, it would be perfectly fine to say Ioke had the lowest estimated (not measured) pressure in the Central Pacific. The hurricane forecaster responsible for reviewing the Ioke information and producing the final best track is still working on things (we have a 90 day deadline after the storm ends to get that produced). I haven't seen any additional information which would greatly alter the 920mb estimates we carried for Ioke at her peak.

Hope this helps.

– Chacor 02:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilma, Linda, and Tip shouldn't need confirmation, since they were the strongest tropical cyclones in their given basins. It's just the others that might prove to be a pain. As for Catarina, I don't think there's any harm in keeping it (it is the only individual South Atlantic cyclone for which we have an article, and it was clearly stronger than the few other cyclones there, official or not). --Coredesat talk! 03:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some fact policing. Mala had just 115 kt winds. 5B in 1999 and 2B in 1991 both had 140 kt winds. 5B had an estimated pressure of 898 mbar. 2B, it depends on who you ask. JTWC says 898, but I've heard 900 and 902 as well. With Gafilo, it depends on the segment of ocean we're talking about here. In 1995, Cyclone Daryl reached an intensity of 150 kt, 885 mb. That seems to be the record. Gafilo was 140 kt, 898 mb. The rest of it looks good. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are those pressures given by the RSMCs or the JTWC? This template uses RSMC data. The official pressure I have for 05B is 912 mbar, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has Cyclone Orson as the strongest in their area at 905 mbar [1] (which would tie it with Monica). --Coredesat talk! 03:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I use JTWC, they have better equipment, and they've been forecasting for 60 years. I don't know where the local RSMCs get their pressures. I never have trusted those local prediction centers. They've made too many wild predictions for my liking (I once saw a storm named by an Australian office that looked like a bunch of scattered thunderstorms with no circulation whatsoever). The 900 and 902 for the 1991 storm came from instruments on land. I've heard the 912 figure for the 1999 storm. It was recorded by a land station in India at the time of landfall. Problem is that 5B had weakened slightly by that time. The reading on Cyclone Orson is from a reconaissance plane and I trust that reading. JTWC uses satellite conversions for its figures and I understand how people could so easily discredit those readings. 912 sounds accurate for us Atlantic bums, but it sounds high for an eastern hemisphere storm. Storms in the West Pacific and Indian Oceans are fed by monsoon troughs that lower the pressure gradient, so storms in those regions would have a lower pressure than a storm of the same wind speed in the Atlantic. So 898 sounds more reasonable. Is it an actual reading from some instrument in the heart of the storm? No. But it's a very educated analysis. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the JTWC is that they are not degreed meteorologists. They are sailors who are taught how to read the models, and their forecasts are only for U.S. military interests and not the general public. The JTWC does not use recon (anymore), ship observations, or buoys to collect data on the storms - they just interpret the Dvorak numbers from various agencies and read the models, and more often than not they just go with the models and plot out a forecast track right in the middle of them without taking outliers into consideration (for instance, they use the TCLAPS Australian model for their WPAC forecasts, and the TCLAPS is a horrible model in that area). Whether we agree with them or not, the only official numbers sanctioned by the WMO are from the local RSMCs (whether their winds are 10-minute or 1-minute averages, or whether their pressures are higher or lower than what Dvorak would have one think). We can acknowledge the JTWC numbers, but they're not official. --Coredesat talk! 05:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, where do I find the more accurate numbers in 1 min mean, which is all understand or accept. Where are these buoy readings, land station readings and other numbers that are said to be more accurate than those of JTWC, because I haven't found them and I've been to those RSMC websites. Where are the historical arcives going back to 1945 with those more accurate readings? I would like to see them. I'm not being at all sarcastic, I really would like to see these better numbers because I haven't found them. Buoys and land stations are far from flawless, NHC would be the first to tell you that. Hurricane hunter planes are really the best way to find out the intensity of the storm. Do any of these RSMCs use them? That inconsistancy I mentioned with 912 pressure reading is legit. I think the idea that Gafilo was the strongest in the "Madagasgar region" (whatever that is) needs to be looked at more closely. Not all giants occurred between 1995 and now as the global warming nutbags would have you believe. And what about 05B? If that 912 reading is correct (big 'if'), then the 1991 storm probably wins with those 900 and 902 readings I found on one of those RSMC websites you guys like. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

JTWC doesn't do recon missions, and hasn't done them in years. Their winds and pressures are purely based on Dvorak conversions and estimation (before the Dvorak technique was introduced). Also, there are disclaimers on the JTWC website that state that they are unofficial and for Department of Defense use only, and to refer to the official RSMCs for more information (there is also one that states that older data may be suspect). JTWC/NRL data is only used when there is no other information available on a given storm. --Coredesat talk! 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, did you even read a word of my last post, because what you just said there had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I asked where are the better numbers? Since JTWC doesn't have them, where are the better figures written in a way that I can understand them? Where are the extensive archives with this more accurate info? Where's the best track data? Where's the report from the land station? Where's the feed from the buoy? Do these RSMCs use recon planes? Does JMA? I don't just trust American agencies, by the way. I trust JMA for the most part, PASAGA, the Chinese and I think the Indians are starting to come around. I think you need to read my previous post again because what you said had nothing to do with it. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The first thing Eric, is I'd suggest you learn how to convert 10 minute to 1 minute (in your mind). There are enough links about it scattered throughout the WPac talk pages - 2003 Pacific typhoon season springs to mind. Its only the Americans who use recon. As for more accurate data its not that but its more correct data, look in the External links in List of named tropical cyclones. Converting to 1-minute is an exercise left to the reader.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Catarina

Back to "Catarina", although there is no official agency for the south Atlantic, it existed and was recognized by official agencies, I don't see a problem with adding it. Thoughts? Evolauxia 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It existed, but who was it recognised by? No-one warned on the storm as a tropical cyclone. – Chacor 00:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They gave it a designation, followed it, called the national/regional authorities (all verifiable) but warnings weren't issued since there is no jurisdiction. Given that it existed, was recognized by official entities, and there are scientific publications on it, pedantic and artificial organizational precedent don't warrant ignoring it. The trusty asterisk (and article) will take care of relevant concerns about peak intensity. Evolauxia 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no official pressure reading. (There's also no official wind speed; the 85 kts used in the article is an estimation by a meteorologist who was then with the University of Guam!) No-one gave it a designation, "Catarina" came from news reports. "Recognised by official entities"? Who? You still haven't answered this question of mine. I'm still not convinced. – Chacor 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I simply said it existed and was recognized, again, this is verifiable in the article and its references/external links. It existed independent of being warned and agencies can recognize it without warning for it. They don't have jurisdiction so couldn't, but you can bet NHC would have if able. They did call Brazilian authorities to stress the need for them to warn but were rebuffed. University and private entities in Brazil recognized it was tropical as it was occurring but have no official forecasting capacity.

NHC recognized it [2] [3] as 01T, Met Office recognized it as 01T, and NRL recognized it as 01L.NONAME -- lumping it with North Atlantic (AFWA recognized it but I don't remember the designation), the Brazilians now recognize it was both tropical and hurricane strength. HPC also noticed it and the NOAA Satellite Services Division and other agencies recognized it by assigning it Dvorak numbers [4]. Informally it was Aldonça within the TC meteorology community before the Brazilian name of Catarina caught on. It is indisputably the strongest TC over observed in the South Atlantic. Many storms are officially assessed without much observation, particularly in the JTWC domain and south Indian Ocean. No jurisdiction means no official wind speed (or pressure), however, plentiful analysis has been done since the event. Evolauxia 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting some of your facts from. "Many storms are officially assessed without much observation, particularly in the JTWC domain and south Indian Ocean." There are RSMCs for these regions. JTWC isn't a part of this at all. Every storm currently in the template was warned on by the respective RSMC(s) or TCWC(s) and assigned intensities by the RSMC(s) or TCWC(s) involved. Its name doesn't matter at all, whether it was Catarina or Aldonça - neither is official, nor were assigned by any authority.

Another thing to bear in mind is that different centres have different criteria for tropical cyclones. I point you to Gary Padgett's summary on Catarina (here). By South Pacific standards this would likely not meet criteria to be called a tropical cyclone, or at the very least, "operationally, it would likely have been named as a tropical cyclone" but end up like Isobel from this year.

You will notice, as per Gary's summary and your own links above, that only the United States TC community even considered this to be a TC. (You don't provide any source that says the Brazilian Met Service says this was a tropical storm/hurricane.) The Met Service only gave it the designation to run the system through the UKMET model.

I'm not doubting the storm existed or anything, it clearly did. But this storm had no official warning centre, and your argument is that the US TC community called it a TC. My point is that in some areas this would not have been considered a TC and warned on, even if the Americans wanted to warn on it. Since there is no official warning centre for this region there is no way for us to tell if they would've called it a tropical cyclone (and the next best thing, which is the Brazilian met service, didn't). [If you're going to point out the fact it had an eye, don't. Even nor'easters have had eye features before. Having an eye doesn't make it any more tropical.] The template includes the lowest official pressure as analysed by the RSMC/TCWC involved on the storm. There is none for Catarina, and there even is dispute on whether it was tropical. For these reasons I still am not convinced. – Chacor 14:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave it off. The South Atlantic isn't a tropical cyclone basin, and has no official warning agency; there are no official estimates (there can't be), just unofficial ones provided by various meteorologists in the U.S. weather community. The other systems have estimates from either official RSMCs or the JTWC (referring to Tip, whose 870 hPa measurement was included in the JMA's best track data). I did say earlier that I thought there would be no harm in keeping it, but Chacor's argument is convincing, especially given some systems this year. --Coredesat 08:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should not be included. It would be like including a Mediterranean Hurricane that some people unofficially tracked. Sure, it existed, but it was out in no man's land. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding the comments here, the reason I made the template is to answer the somewhat ambiguous question of what was the strongest storm, and where (thank you fact police for checking on things). A secondary interest is to observe development trends: almost all of the members of this list fall within the last 9 years of development, and 3 in the past 11 months. At this point, I would surmise the next step would be to verify nothing older beats whats already been verified, and fill in missing regional gaps (I recall hearing of a hurricane forming south of Alaska, but cannot find it). Cwolfsheep 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia

I've changed the strongest cyclone to Cyclone Inigo. Cyclone Monica's official lowest pressure from BoM was 905 hPa, but Inigo's lowest pressure was 900 hPa. If you're in doubt, please see Gary Padgett's track data in australiansevereweather.com. If you find another cyclone with a lower pressure than Inigo's, feel free to change it! RaNdOm26 09:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, Padgett uses JTWC data. Unless BOM confirms Inigo was stronger than Monica, it should say Monica. – Chacor 09:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I retract that; BOM says "Tropical Cyclone Inigo rapidly intensified as it moved to the southwest and reached Category 5 intensity on the 4th when the estimated central pressure was 900hPa with wind gusts to 320km/h." – Chacor 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Padgett does in fact use BoM data. See the intro for "NORTHWEST AUSTRALIA/SOUTHEAST INDIAN OCEAN (AUW) - Longitude 90E to 135E" in here [5]. RaNdOm26 09:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, OK, I am going to change the word Madagascar to South Indian. "Madagascar" sounds a bit to specialised, whereas South Indian covers much more area of the ocean. :) RaNdOm26 11:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the template says 900 mbar for Inigo, but Gwenda in 1998 also had 900 mb. Should both be put in, and if so, how should it look? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

North Indian

Shouldn't the lowest pressure in the North Indian be Typhoon Gay (1989) with 898 mbar? That's much lower than <912 mbar. But I just want to make sure. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 17:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you obtain the pressure reading from???? RaNdOm26 08:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Typhoon Gay article. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Order

Currently, the basins are ordered alphabetically. With the recent addition of lowest pressures, would it be better for the order to be based on the pressure of the respective most powerful storms? - SpLoT // 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongest North Indian Ocean storm

The Bay Of Bengal and Arrabian Sea are two different bodies of water that make up the same basin, so I don't think there should be a seperate strongest storm for the Arrabian Sea and Bay Of Bengal. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it doesn't matter terribly. Technically they should probably be lumped together, but I like the symmetry of having 9. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hink, there is no such thing as a "2010 Arabian Sea cyclone season" or "2010 Bay of Bengal cyclone season", so Gonu should be removed. The 1999 storm is the strongest storm in the entire North Indian Ocean basin. It may not look the same, but Hink, if you don't like the symmetry, we can make two rows of 4(or 4 rows of two) rather than 3 rows of 3. Is that fine with you? I mean, the two seas in the NIO make up one basin. In the same way, there isn't a "strongest western Australia storm" or a "strongest eastern Australia storm", because Australia's Indian Ocean to the West and Coral Sea to the East both make one basin. Of course, this isn't the same with the Central and Eastern Pacific, because storms are given Hawaian names if they form in the CPAC, west of 140 to the dateline, and are named from the NHC if they form east of 140 west to Central America. Do you agree with this? I'll show what I think it should look like. Wait a moment... Rye998 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There, all done. I kept it symmetric, like you wanted, and the strongest NIO storm is there instead of the strongest BOB/AR Sea storms. Do you still like it, Hink? Or does anyone else like it? I personally like it the way it is, it appears much better. Rye998 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, not bad. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with excluding the Arabian Sea. Although it is technically part of the Northern Indian Ocean basin, the IMD gives systems in that area a separate identifier, unlike in Australia where all storms in the region have the identifier "U". The JTWC also follows this, using "A" and "B" to classify systems in the respective bodies of water. This holds true for all other basins (except Western Pacific because the JMA doesn't use identifiers). Each region is given a specific letter. Atlantic (L), Southern Atlantic (Q), Eastern Pacific (E), Central Pacific (C), Western Pacific (W), Bay of Bengal (BoB/B), Arabian Sea (ARB/A), South-west Indian Ocean (R), Australia (U) and Southern Pacific (F). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But even though the Arabian sea isn't given the same numbers for depressions, the Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal use the same names from the same list. If Gonu had formed in the Bay of Bengal, it still would have been named Gonu. By contrast, however, the Central Pacific and Eastern Pacific use different numbers with their storms and are named accordingly as well. If a storm formes in the Eastern Pacific and becomes named there, it keeps it's name in the Central Pacific basin as well. If a storm forms in the CPac, it is given a Hawaian name instead of one of the NHC's names. The reason why I support merging the two basins into "North Indian Ocean" is because the WMO does not define the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal as seperate tropical cyclone basins, and the IMD doesn't either. They may not have the same numbers when they are depressions, but named storms in both seas share the same naming list. They may not be given the same number when they are depressions, but if they would have the same name in either sea, then they aren't two completly different basins. If they were seperate, we would have 60 or so seperate articles on each season. As I mentioned above, there is no such thing as a "2010 Bay of Bengal Cyclone season" or a "2010 Arabian Sea cyclone season" because they share the same naming list from the same RSMC. They may have different numbers, but they don't have different names. Because of that, I believe it's rather unnecesary to make a strongest storm for each individual sea. Australia is split into 5 seperate RSMC's, but we group them into one basin. Because the WMO doesn't define them as seperate basins we shouldn't either. Rye998 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with that rationale. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing, Cyclonebiskit, you even admitted in the straw poll of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season talk page "I can't go against what the WMO states. If they group the basins together, so do we." Why would you just contradict yourself here in that case, and with a basin that shares the same naming list over two seas? The CPac and EPac have their own naming lists and you thought they should be together, so why would you disagree with this particular case, with different numbers but the same names? Rye998 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)