Talk:2016–17 Australian region cyclone season

Location of Advisories

 * Tropical Cyclone Three Day Outlook Jakarta \\ Perth \\ Darwin \\ Brisbane


 * Tropical Cyclone High Seas Warning Jakarta \\ Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin \\ Brisbane


 * Tropical Cyclone Technical Bulletin Perth 1 \\ Perth 2 \\ Darwin \\ Brisbane


 * Main Pages Jakarta \\ BoM \\ JTWC


 * ABIO10 STWA \\ ABPW10 STWA
 * JTWC 1 \\ JTWC 2 \\ JTWC 3
 * Running Best track


 * JMA Archives: Jakarta // Perth // Darwin // Brisbane // PNG // JTWC

TLs reminder
Just saying that last season I started to speculate how the BoM designates lows and why sometimes they skip designations. So I've asked Keith to watch BoM's bulletins from the 3 TCWCs (P, D, B) and place in if they have mentioned in a "TL" or "weak TL". So as of now, we counted 7 of them since 23/9 and finally, today, BoM has now started issuing advisories, therefore, its designation will be out soon for this one. If for some reason this TL was "01U", then will we change the start date from 23/9 to 19/12? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Ignore all this at the moment. I may have a suspicion of how the BoM monitors/tracks their TLs as we now have 07U officially. But let's see and wait. Typhoon2013  (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Intensity Category Thresholds
I believe the intensity category thresholds listed on the Seasonal Summary timeline are incorrect. I have located the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's official wind strength thresholds for their classification of cyclones on their Frequently Asked Questions page. According to these figures, most of the wind speeds listed on the Seasonal Summary timeline are incorrect (slightly off). This includes two numbers which are more than 20 km/h incorrect. The wind strengths can be found in FAQ #10 of the 'Definitions' section of the Frequently Asked Questions page which I linked earlier in this paragraph. I have listed the strengths below as well (I performed my own conversions to the imperial measurement system, stated in brackets):


 * Tropical Low: <63 km/h (<39 mph)
 * Category 1: 63-88 km/h (39-55 mph)
 * Category 2: 89-117 km/h (55-73 mph)
 * Category 3: 118-159 km/h (73-99 mph)
 * Category 4: 160-199 km/h (99-124 mph)
 * Category 5: ≥200 km/h (≥124 mph)

I will adjust the figures listed on the Seasonal Summary timeline at the same time as I update the statistics regarding Tropical Cyclone Frances according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's information (due at about 5:00 pm ACST). ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good catch, nice job. However, after doing a quick check, it now appears that all other 97 Australian region and South Pacific season articles with timelines also share this problem. Could someone familiar with WP:AWB please help to rectify? Thanks. ~ KN2731 {talk} 09:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances
I have information that, I believe, proves the first noted location of the precursor low to Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (where this article's information is primarily sourced) was in the Gulf of Papua at 12:00 UTC on the 20th of April, and not the 21st of April as is noted in this article. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology operates a service called 'MetEye', and when there is a significant tropical system active in the region, its entire track (beginning at the time it became a significant system) is plotted on this service, and a 120-hour forecast track is issued. The first written mention of the system may not have occurred until the 21st of April in the Northern Region Tropical Cyclone Outlook, but the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has clearly assessed more recently that the system was of significance on the 20th of April, and consequently displayed that date as the first track location on MetEye.

I noticed this a few days ago, and promptly changed the formation date to the 20th of April so as to align our article with the most correct and up-to-date information available. However, my edit was soon reverted. I strongly believe that the formation date of Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances should be changed to the 20th of April (as it is the correct date), and for that reason I will carry out this task shortly. If anyone disagrees, I would be very happy to further entertain discussion on this topic. However, in my view, I have presented enough information to warrant the changing of this date. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi and sorry for a late reply. First of all do you have a source to support your evidence? Because I have been watching the TCWC Bulletins for nearly every day now. Although, I think you are referring to a "weak low" during an advisory during the 20th, but it is not "tropical" therefore we should not include it. If it says "tropical low" or at least "weak tropical low" then we include it. Typhoon2013  (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Typhoon2013. Thanks for your reply (it wasn't late). I don't specifically have a source I can reference by way of URL or anything such to back up my claim. However, if you click on the hyperlink I included in my original post, it will take you to the Bureau of Meteorology's MetEye service (that is, unless you've already done that). You should notice that the track for Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances is plotted on the map. The first location (in the Gulf of Papua) has a time of 12:00 UTC 20 April associated with it. It would be my assumption that, had the Bureau of Meteorology not classified the system a 'tropical low' at that time, that location would not have been included on the track map. If the system truly wasn't a tropical low at that time, that would mean that the BOM decided to arbitrarily include that location but exclude all locations before it, even though all previous times and locations would also have been classified as non-tropical lows. It just seems illogical that they would include a location of the system when it wasn't even classified as a tropical low.


 * I don't really know if I explained that particularly well, but... I tried. I have tried archiving the MetEye page, but it doesn't seem to work, which means there's no way I can provide a source that will be concrete and unchanging forever. However, for the duration of this cyclone, the track map will continue to be displayed on MetEye. I hope what I said is logical and makes sense. Anyway, thanks for replying. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While i could probably make an argument for using the 20th based on Darwins TWO coming out at something like 04z, lets stick with the 21st for now until the preliminary TCR, comes out at some point next week.Jason Rees (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think waiting for the tropical cyclone report is a good idea. I was probably too hasty in changing the dates... sorry. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise as I strongly think that your thoughts make sense and that your right, but it is better that we wait for the TCR next week before adjusting the dates. In fact I think we could probably do with more editors like you who keep us senior editors on our toes.Jason Rees (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The TCR is out and the BoM are saying that it developed on the 21st.Jason Rees (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Glad it was cleared up. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Greg
In JTWC's tropical cyclone formation alert, they stated the winds as between 25 and 30 knots. It may not be in a cyclone warning specifically, but it is still an official advisory regarding the system. They are also tracking it, as they have listed coordinates. Therefore, I believe it is correct to input 1-minute sustained wind speeds of either 45 or 55 km/h. As 1-minute sustained winds are higher than 10-minute sustained, 55 km/h would be the better option (also considering those speeds were a few hours ago). ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the system from JTWC has winds of 25-30 knots, but the JTWC, as of now, has this system only as a "tropical disturbance" therefore of course it is not yet a tropical depression (or storm) from them. Usually in the SHem, the cyclone's first advisory from them would already be a tropical storm. Also in this site, the JTWC is still not tracking the system as "18S" so therefore we cannot add it yet. Typhoon2013  (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * JTWC doesn't issue advisories for TDs in the SHEM. They would instead upgrade it to TD without issuing advisories, as seen here. Hence, Greg was a TD according to JTWC, but no advisories were issued. Its US designation remains as 98S thoughout its entire lifetime. A lot of other TDs were designated by them too in this way, just that we didn't notice them.Damien4794 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. Thanks again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 18 went to future Donna in the south pacific　near Vanuatu. グリフォーザー
 * With the source you provided, I would now just wait for the JTWC BT for this season and let's see if this gets upgraded and possibly with a designation of 19S. But as of now, they only have this as 98S / disturbance so we can't really add it in. Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is, all TDs in the SHEM are never given a sequential designation like 19P. These TDs remain as invests but are still classed as TDs. Damien4794 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal summary graphic
What does the height (or the x axis) in the graphic correspond to? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC) It doesnt correspond to anything as far as i know.Jason Rees (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cyclone Ernie
No effects on land, nothing special for its rapid intensification B dash (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with your second comment there. Severe Tropical Cyclone Ernie developed extremely quickly despite forecasts suggesting it had plateaued at Category 2. Indeed, using numbers on the low end of the scale, it can be calculated that its average intensification rate was approximately 2.7 kn/h. This was even described by the Bureau of Meteorology as extraordinary, which lends credibility to the noteworthiness of the cyclone, and thus justifying having its own article. Additionally, it is not as if the article is a stub. I could understand if you wanted to merge the article if there was hardly anything in the article, but the article is still of an adequate length. I don't really see any reason to merge it, considering its existence is not damaging WP:WPTC by any means, and it is a useful source of information for the general public on an interesting cyclone. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Netural - I can see both sides of the coin with regards to merging. However, I think the article would benefit with some cleaning to ensure, that it uses the advisories from the April archive of this talk page, rather than some random forum.Jason Rees (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At a very quick glance, there's enough content there for a separate article. YE Pacific Hurricane  20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - There is absolutely no need for this article to be merged with the season article. Ernie was a notable storm for being an Australian-region Category 5 tropical cyclone, and for its extremely rapid rate of intensification, and its article is well-written as far as I can see. Honestly, your argument for its merger is not very specific. Cooper 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)