Talk:2019–20 South Pacific cyclone season

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 02F 12-20-2019 1130Z.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

02F needs a track image ASAP

The disturbance still lacks a track image. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 23:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not going to need one as its very likely to end up in the Other systems section, since its unorganised, aint gonna develop any further or cause any major damage.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Uhh... There have been lots of disturbances put into their own sections, wdym? Just look at the past seasons. They have tracks, too. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 21:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes several other tropical disturbances get their own sections but as those seasons get cleaned up and expanded they will probably get put into an other systems section (some have already!). This is because there is very little to be said about them when we remember that everything has to be easily verifiable to the lay person and why I dont feel that 02F needs a track map.Jason Rees (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

But there IS already plenty of information “to be said” about the system... Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 03:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with that assessment as the MH that has been written for 02F isnt fully sourced and seems like it would not be easily verified by a lay person who is interested in the 2019-20 cyclone season but doesnt know the jargon.Jason Rees (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the date format for this basin?

Currently, both MDY and DMY are used here. I would think DMY is the better option since most countries in the SPac region (NZ, Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Samoa, Niue, Tuvalu, etc) all use DMY, but previous SPac season articles all appear to use MDY. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tino Article.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Tino has already affected plenty of land and done some pretty bad damage in parts of Eastern Fiji according to news sources, and is now targetting Fiji. I personally think it needs an article, and if you agree, please help me make it. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 23:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been working on an article in my user space which you are more than welcome to contribute if you wish.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarai should get a article

If Tino gets its own article, why not Sarai? Can someone please make an article about Tropical Cyclone Sarai? Floridaball (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarai did do notable amount of damage and killed 3 people. Floridaball (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarai affected Fiji badly Floridaball (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have an article about Sarai in development within my userspace - I just haven't got around to finishing it off. Feel free to help. :) Jason Rees (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

07F and 08F

@Jason Rees: There seems to be something weird going on with 07F and 08F and the JTWC's Invests 93P and 96P. Either I am confused (which is certainly possible), or the JTWC and FMS are saying opposite things. 07F clearly formed first, and was originally located north of Fiji, near Tuvalu. This corresponds mostly to Invest 93P, whose first coordinate listed on the trackfile is 10.8°S 169.5°E at 00Z on 14 February. The location seems to be a little further west than the FMS recognised it, but it seems to still be the same system, and the location discrepancy is probably related to the complex environment that the JTWC described. The JTWC then designated Invest 96P, which formed just outside the Australian region and then moved into the Australian region for a bit (where it was classified as a tropical low by the BOM). The system then moved back out into the SPac again, where the JTWC trackfile indicated that it moved very quickly eastwards. Unfortunately, the first few days of data on this invest have been deleted, so they can't actually be used for reference anymore, which is extremely irritating. The FMS then began advising on 08F on 17 February when it was between American Samoa and Niue. Now, since 07F, 08F, 93P and 96P are the only systems being advised upon, and we have determined thus far that 07F corresponds to 93P, then we must assume that 08F and 96P are the same system. However, this is where the issue appears. The location of 96P on 17 February, when the FMS begins advising on 08F, is not anywhere near 08F. In fact, 96P is about 13 degrees of longitude to the west of 08F. However, the location of 93P at this time corresponds exactly to the location of 08F! The FMS has also recently said that 08F dissipated to the south of 25°S, which also corresponds to the trackfile for 93P. So, it seems that 93P was originally 07F, but then somehow became 08F. 93P cannot have been 08F all along, because 93 is less than 96, which means 93P formed before 96P, and since we know 07F formed before 08F by several days, we know that 07F must have been 93P originally. Also, 07F can't have been 96P, because the FMS stated 07F formed near Tuvalu on 14 February, except both the JTWC and BOM say that there was a tropical system in the Australian region (designated 96P by the JTWC at the time) on 15/16 February, nearly 20 degrees further west. So, my question is... which invest should we connect with each disturbance? Invest 93P became a subtropical storm for 12 hours on 18 February according to the JTWC data, which should be indicated in an infobox, except should this be for 07F or 08F? Invest 93P began life as 07F, and then transitioned to 08F on 17 February while 07F still existed. It makes absolutely no sense. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

For reference: 93P trackfile and 96P trackfile (or what is left of it...) ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Meow: I should note that this is why it is important to make the track maps early, even if the system has not become a depression or storm yet. Some of the tracking data sometimes gets deleted even before the system has dissipated, like has happened with 96P here. This means we can't use the map for the Australian region system anymore, and it is difficult to resolve (admittedly rare) confusing situations like the one above. I would make the track maps myself, but I don't know how, and I really don't want to have to download heaps of software and programs just to make track maps. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a very confusing situation as by my count Nadi has tracked 15 different LPA's in the last week, however, what is clear is that 07F has remained in the same general area until this morning when it was relocated to 15.6S 172.6W while 08F generally moved southwards. I went through the STWA's and it is an understatement to say it is a complete and utter mess. As a result, I don't feel comfortable in assigning invest numbers to either system until I can go through them more. Jason Rees (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

On a side note @ChocolateTrain: can I scream other systems in your face very loudly as the 3 sections would be great merged. :P Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Ha ha ha! Aren't there only two systems, though? ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There was only 2 systems but 09F decided to join the party! Jason Rees (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't even realise. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well now @ChocolateTrain: we have had 97P, 98P, TC 17P & TC Vicky within the last 24 hours, oh and the CPHC (covering for Pago Pago) are hinting at 10F developing in the next couple of days.Jason Rees (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rita

In the Rita info table it says peaked at 70mph c2 10-min but in the storm description it says c3 75mph ten min. It needs to be edited to whatever is correct.