Talk:Tropical cyclones in 2021

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[2021 Pacific typhoon season#Tropical Depression Crising|a tropical depression]] [[2021 Pacific typhoon season#Tropical Storm Mirinae|Mirinae]] [[2021 Pacific typhoon season#Tropical Storm Omais|Omais]] [[2021 Pacific typhoon season#Tropical Storm Conson|Conson]] [[2021 Pacific typhoon season#Other Systems|TD]] The anchor (#Other Systems) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Why haven't the 2021 Pacific hurricane season article is not yet made? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one may have started a draft for it. Feel free to start one, if you'd like, or we can wait until the season gets closer--around April or so. Gumballs678 talk 19:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. If they formed in 2020 and remain TDs, they count towards 2020
2. If a TD strengthens into a TS, it counts for 2021
3. If a storm moves into another basin after December 31, it counts for both years

This is how storms should be handled if they cross years Noah^Talk 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo = 2021. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: So Danilo had became a TS in January 1 so counted??? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 Talk 04:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it counts now (only for 2021 now). The other TD still doesn't count unless it becomes a TS. Noah^Talk 04:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Cyclone Blake didn't count for 2020 season? (Just a doubt). Beraniladri19🌀🌀 Talk 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a part of 2019–20 Australian season and a part of Tropical cyclones in 2020. Noah^Talk 04:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been addressed for other years. Either fix it for other years or this is an irrelevant problem Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seen this just now. Thanks Noah for addressing this and you are right. We have seen some cases like 2018's Bolaven and 2019's Pabuk about this. Should a system be considered a TS in 2021 will be included in this year (2021). This should also be mentioned in the 'Notes' clearly, as the 3rd one could be quite confusing here - as it does not mention something in the lines of "...should a system be named after 1/1, it will be counted in this year" etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: This only applies to the West Pacific Ocean. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 Talk 13:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beraniladri19: For Note 3? Yep it is. But if you have a crossover system where they became a TS before 1/1, then it should be part of the original year and not the new year. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Danilo in the systems section? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: Ask that question to Hurricaneboy23. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) (edits) 12:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to put Invest 99S into the systems list? It formed in the SWI basin, it's currently 20kts in 10-minute sustained winds, and has an estimated central pressure of 1003 mb. Its current position is around 79 degrees east and 15 degrees south. 2003 LN₆ (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it is classified as something by RSMC La Reunion or the JTWC as invest areas are a dodgy area, as after all the BoM might have requested that the JTWC open an invest up for example.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Invest is not counted man so not counted. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) (edits) 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beraniladri19: Some are, some arent it as it all depends on the basin and the official warning agency. For example: Nadi and Reunion designate a system as xxF at the tropical disturbance stage, while the JTWC still classifies it as an invest.Jason Rees (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: But we dont count invest. IMD has category called low pressure area and well marked low pressure area however we dont count that because unless it becomes a depression it cannot be counted.Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) (edits) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beraniladri19: Have a reread of my comments, I said that invests were only counted if they were classified as something by the RSMC in question. The IMD classifying something as a depression, while it was still an invest, however, if it was to be numbered at the well-marked low-pressure area stage then there is no reason why we wouldn't include it in the season articles as it is a numbered system of the year.Jason Rees (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I don't know but RSMC La Reunion haven't yet said about Invest 99S. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) (edits) 05:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Earth website information, we cannot put in it, rsmc data is important.Dam222 🌋 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! It formed into a zone of disturbed weather! 2003 LN₆ (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the January summary page, both Danilo and 05 are being mentioned as storms that crossed over from 2020. Do we need to include them in the month's summary or can we exclude them and only include the systems that actually formed in January? Gumballs678 talk 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gumballs678, Better to remove it. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 12:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to removing those systems from the monthly summuary and this article as they are tropical cyclones that have existed in 2021 despite forming in 2020. As a result, I would strongly suggest that they are included in the same way a system would be included if it had only crossed a month rather than a year.Jason Rees (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: And that's fine. I see the argument for both, which is why I asked. Thanks for the input. :) Gumballs678 talk 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its a tricky one @Gumballs678: but for whatever its worth the decision is kind of taken out of our hands, as a system being named at 00z on January 1 would be classified as XX01 rather than XX of YY by the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that part. I was just more concerned about the storms being mentioned in January's summary. But, I do like how it's been re-written now as opposed to what it was when I first asked this question. And yeah, the whole naming a system is tricky in most basins anyway, but especially ones that cross years. Gumballs678 talk 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah @Gumballs678: My point was the JMA would list the system as XX01 and as developing in January, rather than as xxyy and developing in December which is why the decision is out of our hands.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. :) Gumballs678 talk 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am gonna ask why 06F's winds are 30kt when the main article says winds are not specified. I believe there should be unification, so hope someone might check on that. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask how formation date and dissipation date are determined, as advisories from official agencies, JTWC, or ATCF, like some agencies would put final advisories but yet they still call them tropical cyclone day after. (I was saying this because of 12U's ATCF still updating for February 6 as TS.) So, It would be helpful to clarify that, especially with examples of each basins. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Eloise and Joshua have their dissipation date the same as the ATCF data but not aligned with MFR data. However, take Bina for example, it is TD on February 1 00z but it says dissipated by January 31. I would like to know the criteria more clearly... Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Is anyone interested to give TS 01Q here because I think it is unofficial and not designated by the Brazilian Navy. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 02:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01Q looks to be a tricky situation. It wasn't monitored by the Brazilian Navy, which is how we typically monitor cyclones in the South Atlantic, but NOAA did monitor it and recognizes it as a tropical cyclone. It would be like if the JTWC monitored a tropical depression in the WPAC but the JMA didn't. I think for now until we can get a clearer picture of it, we should leave it off as a cyclone that formed during the year. Gumballs678 talk 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to quickly point out that the South Atlantic tropical cyclone article has it listed, with a summary. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it's unofficial since the Brazilian Navy never recognized it as a tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic. Since they are the "warning center" in the basin, they get official word. NOAA may have tracked it, but NOAA doesn't officially decide what gets recognized as a tropical cyclone in the basin. Gumballs678 talk 20:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The storm should be included. The JTWC isn't official in the WPAC either, but we also include the storms that only the JTWC recognizes in that basin. You should also note that the Brazilian Navy is not that adept at recognizing tropical cyclones. This would be a situation similar to that of the Mediterranean, where nothing is actually official. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also a tricky situation, but I agree with you. I think we should have a little more consensus before we include it. Technically, since it developed in the basin and was recognized by NOAA, it should be included. I'm up for more arguments on for/against and consensus. Gumballs678 talk 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that 01Q should be included in the article, as it is included in the SATL article, and MARINHA isn't the like RSMC of SATL, just the most notable agency which names them. Overall, I agree that there better be a consensus for all basins about how they are recorded, archived, + formation dissipation dates and crossover, etc. Hope it gets way more clear throughout this year... Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding 01Q to the article, per the users above me. Also, We should take into more consideration that the Brazilian Navy has some inconsistencies within classifying storms, so it is good that we have Noaa, (which has more overall Tropical Cyclone Experience), labeling the storm. Also, since Noaa is an official organization (which is in charge of the NHC) it makes sense to include the system, as they are most likely to be credible and accurate though it would be like what Gumballs678 and L&D2000 said, it is unofficial as they are outside their main area of tracking, and so it would be like the Mediterranean, and their cyclones. At this point, I am just rambling, but I think you guys see the picture. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that 01Q should be added to the article, for a variety of reasons: while it would make considerable sense if it was, per se, the JTWC monitoring a CPAC storm while the CPHC leaves it unrecognized, keep in mind that the Brazilian navy (despite their current recognition in terms of granting names to tropical cyclones) is still not an official RSMC. In addition, the NOAA is generally a credible source for monitoring tropical cyclones. Lastly, the BNHC does have a (objective) history of designating tropical cyclones with relative inconsistency, and considering that other less-recognized cyclones have made appearances on other worldwide tropical cyclone pages I don't really see any reason to exclude 01Q from this one. X2A3Q (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 01Q should be added since lets face facts it was assigned a Q number, however, I have not seen any bulletins from SAB specifically calling it a TROPICAL STORM.Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I went back and looked here and found no evidence that the storm was ever anything more than a subtropical storm. So, it should be stated as both a subtropical storm on the South Atlantic page & on the list of (sub)tropical cyclones during this year. Gumballs678 talk 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone bulletins issued by NOAA are automatically tropical. The final bulletin indicates that the storm had actually transitioned into a subtropical cyclone, which appears to be the reasoning for discontinuing advisories. Simply listing the storm as a subtropical cyclone would be inaccurate.

Regardless, there still appears to be a general consensus in adding the system to the page. I won't add it myself as there's still a possibility that there could be other arguments against it but if anyone feels as if consensus has been reached I'm definitely not opposed to editing the page accordingly. X2A3Q (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that it actually was tropical though. I haven't found anything. Is there an actual advisory where the storm is actually indicated as fully tropical? I'm not opposed to you adding it on there, but if you can find an advisory from the storm that issues it as tropical. NOAA may automatically issue it is a tropical cyclone, but I never found anything that said that it was in fact, a "tropical" storm. Gumballs678 talk 23:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be correct, NOAA (excluding the North Atlantic) does not issue bulletins or Dvorak estimates on subtropical cyclones (despite, however, issuing similar tropical cyclone formation outlooks on subtropical systems, especially for former fully tropical cyclones.) It's certainly possible that we could change the listing of 01Q on the South Atlantic page to subtropical, but even that would be more of an assumption and is far from the most accurate description we could give. On another note, I'll add 01Q to the page since there doesn't currently appear to be any arguments against it. X2A3Q (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's we all have to go off, then I'd rather not make an assumption on what the storm was or wasn't when the data we have currently stated it as tropical. Go ahead and leave it as is on the SATL page, but go ahead and add it to February's summary. Thank you! :) Gumballs678 talk 23:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont get me wrong here: We can call it tropical per SAB but we cant call it a tropical storm as opposed to a tropical depression, disturbance etc. Especially when T2.5 doesn't always mean tropical storm strength around the world.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees, CycloneFootball71, Gumballs678, X2A3Q, LightandDark2000, and Luke Kern Choi 5: So would it be counted as seasonal total? Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to ask, where is intensity 35kt 990hPa from? From MARINHA or NOAA? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Kern Choi 5: Most probably NOAA. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as provided link in the main page (bulletins) only include Dvorak intensity. It is possible the data are from MARINHA weather map, but I can't verify so I would like to check it to verify. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand and found last night, all data provided on 01Q is provided by NOAA, which is where the 35kt/ 990 hPa is coming from. And @Beraniladri19: yes, it would be included in the seasonal total, similarly to how last year's three SATL systems were. We will just include it as tropical cyclones have formed in tropical cyclone basins throughout the world including a tropical storm in the South Atlantic, or something along those lines. You can look back to last year's page for clarification. Gumballs678 talk 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Very Intense Tropical Cyclone Faraji 2000Z	(2) Intense Tropical Cyclone Faraji 0810Z

Hi guys There has been controversy two images I am starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. HurricaneEdgar 03:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The second image appears to be the better pic for the article. It is clearer, you can see more details because it is in the daylight, and the system appears stronger, as compared to the night infrared image, in which the system appears to be going through an eye-wall replacement cycle, and is not as detailed. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 04:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on I support the true color image for purely aesthetic reasons. There has been some storm images in the global TC articles which aren't exactly peak but are more representative of the storm itself. 2 of these night time color images (Eloise and Faraji) just looks weird on top of each other, and one being true colored looks better. I wanted to see what others think Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @HurricaneEdgar:, the second image is when the cyclone reached its peak intensity on February 8th, based on what the 2020-21 Cyclone season article states and what references say. The first image is after the cyclone peaked, and had started to weaken already. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image 1 is better images, also this is peak intensity HurricaneEdgar 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneEdgar: I saw the source, and understand that now. Thanks 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I add this wikitext "from:19/01/2021 till:20/01/2021 color:WPAC text:"TD" " to the timeline, the names of the system disappeared. Pls someone fix this. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀

This isn't something we can easily fix as it seems to be the software itself then anything we do. Just bear with us as I am asking around to see if it can be fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Lucas counts for South Pacific and Australian region or only for Australian region? Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 04:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It counts for only the Australian. Since it's the same storm when it crossed basins, it only gets counted once, otherwise, you're counting the same storm twice. So, on each basin's summaries, Lucas will be mentioned and will be counted in the basins' totals, but when counting for total number of cyclones in the year, you only count it once. The same goes for Marian and Niran and any other cyclone this year that may cross into another basin. In other words, Lucas is both a storm in the Australian region and the South Pacific, but it only gets counted once in the total number of cyclones. From my understanding, since it formed in the Australian region, that is where Lucas gets counted. Gumballs678 talk 18:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now I understand as well. Iseriously (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - is Surigae the most powerful tropical cyclone recorded in April? I've done some searching and

StopBoi, In the WPac yes it's the most powerful storm of this month after Maysak in 2015. But Fantala pressure is 910 mb while Surigae is 895 mb, so yes it is most powerful storm in the month of April Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But without any reliable source you can't add this Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 03:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you!

Pinging @Gumballs678:, @Beraniladri19: since they were the other people involved in this minor dispute. I'm starting this section to prevent an edit war from occurring over this obvious misunderstanding. Can we recount the systems since I've already recounted multiple times and gotten 42 (excluding 01Q)? Akbermamps 09:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get 45 (including 01Q). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumballs678 and Akbermamps: It was a calculation error in the AUSR basin, AUSR is 20 while SPAC is 7. The reason is that, a tropical low formed in AUSR which quickly exited the AUSR basin and entered the SPAC which is known as 13F. Have you understand ? Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 10:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AUSR should already be 20. But, I'm glad you caught the discrepancy with 13F. Gumballs678 talk 10:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumballs678: Even I was confused but when I have looked the other system section of the article I have understood. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 11:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Glad you found the clarification! :) Gumballs678 talk 12:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching a consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? No one has said anything about the actual system count thus far. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: It's 41, I have explained it why. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its 42 if you count what every single section of the article. If BOM and FMS have the same storm as 2 individual systems, so be it. Its their call, not ours. Each section says: January had 14, February had 11, and March and April had 9. Add all those up, you get 43. Exclude 01Q, you get 42. Simple math. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: Ok I have forgotten to calculate a new TL which has recently formed. Thanks. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 16:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, alright. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's where Beraniladri19 got confused, the total number of storms in the Australian region. But, you are correct in that it should be 42, excluding 01Q, as was stated originally before the minor dispute this morning. To prevent something like this from happening again, it's important we only count each tropical cyclone ONCE (meaning if it crosses into another basin, it counts ONLY for its originating basin in the system count--it will be counted in both basin's seasonal summaries, like Niran this year, for example--AND look at each section within a basin's current system to make sure we aren't missing any. Basins like the AUSR and WPAC can be difficult sometimes keeping track as many of their systems often end up in the "other systems" portion. This has been noted before at the beginning of this year, but we also need to make sure we count tropical cyclones that cross years correctly and accurately. Gumballs678 talk 02:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's currently 42 + 1(01Q) in Wiki.

I suggest adding Subtropical Storm 96P noted by JTWC as unofficial system (in SPAC) like 01Q. Any ideas about this? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Kern Choi 5: Yes, I found in zoom.earth website, but JTWC is unofficial so we can't add that until RSMC Nadi designated this system. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 04:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally in two minds about adding the system to the SPac season. Yes the JTWC monitored the system as a subtropical low, while Nadi/Wellington monitored it within their marine bulletins as a normal low. My question therefore is where do we draw the line, if we add this subtropical low? Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is: to check if it satisfies TC scale from Nadi/Wellington, (like Tropical Disturbance/Tropical Depression) if not, then put its name to '96P', and say that JTWC unofficially monitored system as subtropical storm, while Nadi/Wellington monitored it as a normal low. And the next thing we need to discuss is the duration. Based on the products itself, it was introduced at 24th 00z by JTWC whilst dissipating on 25th. In ATCF, it is from 23rd. Anyway I think it is fair to add this system as 'unofficial' TC/STC.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Kern Choi 5: Even though if u guys wanna give it or not i don't care, but I don't think it'll last long Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 08:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not recognized by any official RSMC and thus should not be counted. Its as simple as that. It wasn't even given a real subtropical designation and no advisories were issued by JTWC and was essentially an invest. RSMC Nadi specifically monitored the system as a low, so it is a low. Not a tropical disturbance. Smells of an

WP:OR excuse. Also, I wouldn't recommend adding the storm back unless you reach a consensus. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

NOAA but Brazilian Navy didn't monitored it. Same happened here, JTWC designated as subtropical storm 96P, while RSMC Nadi didn't tracked it. I guess we need more WPTC members to re-think of adding this system Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

also stop declaring that it is

WP:OR, it's not Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a difference. The South Atlantic HAS no official RSMC (the Brazilian Navy, unsurprisingly, has never been designated by the WMO was one), so any designations can count. South Pacific does, however, have an RSMC, and the JTWC is not one of them. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: Ok, let see what other WPTC member says, I personally neither support it or oppose it. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 16:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of things to think about how we present JTWC systems here. 1) Should we monitor subtropical storms in basins where they are generally not publically monitored by the official warning centers as anything more than a normal low. 2) While the JTWC called it a subtropical storm, they only slapped the next invest tag on it and didn't initiate advisories on it, which indicates that they were not that interested in it. However, we have to remember that historically we include systems that we have evidence of the JTWC, NPMOC or CPHC initiating advisories on but not the BoM, FMS or NZMS. As a result, should we now be including systems that they assign an invest status to or call a tropical depression in the RBT and if so how do we add it in? Jason Rees (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Like in the previous statement, I think we need more WPTC members to reach an agreement/consensus. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to be that guy, but this article is titled “tropical cyclones in 2021”. We could make an article for “Subtropical cyclones in 2021”. Or that could be a distinct section in this article. SS’s are similar to TC’s for sure, but they aren’t the same meteorological phenomenon. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricanehink: That's irrelevant here in this discussion, and no, we shouldn't have a different section as the article mentions in the lead that (sub)tropical cyclones have formed or not. The same goes for every year and in every basin should one development. As to the actual argument here, 96P SHOULD NOT be included because one, RSMC Nadi did not classify as it anything more than a low, and two, the JTWC never officially initiated advisories on it. If, say the JTWC had issued advisories on it, then we could make the argument that 96P be included, because we included 01Q in the count because NOAA monitored it, but the Brazilian Navy did not. While the SATL doesn't have an official RSMC, we still include those systems in our count and use the Brazilian Navy as the "official" monitoring entity, despite there not being one. So, again, I believe 96P should not be included in the count because neither the JTWC or RSMC Nadi ever issued advisories on it. If perhaps, we find that later in the year, it was a subtropical storm, then yes, we can go back and add it in, but for now, it should remain not included. Gumballs678 talk 20:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's understood that this type of article should include subtropical storms (which seems to be the consensus), then we should include storms that a reputable source classified as one. It's OK that some storms are only classified by the JTWC, or another reliable source. For verification purposes, we can prove they exist and on what dates, so we should include them. Being thorough is better than being too restrictive. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with above, but RSMC Nadi does not go back and check for subtropical systems. This is about the same as adding an invest to seasonal totals since it essentially was an invest, and we never have done that. . . Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you guys are so hung up on RSMC Nadi when the low was in TCWC Wellingtons AOR and both centres monitor systems 24/7.Jason Rees (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really ever a question of whether they monitored it. I already knew they didn't monitor it as a subtropical storm and JTWC, the one agency that did, didn't even issue advisories on it and it was essentially an invest. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad, I thought it was in Nadi's AOR. But, like Hurricaneboy23 said, if it was essentially an invest, then it was an invest and it shouldn't be counted in the total. No other basin has its invests counted in its systems total (except the AUSR, which is a completely different cup of tea than this conversation), so we shouldn't be counting 96P. Gumballs678 talk 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumballs678: But the only problem is that they have also used subtropical storm tag along with the invest tag, that's the confusion happened. Anyways we aren't counting this system. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 02:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we kinda do include the invests in all of the basin totals when they have been called by the official warning centre for the region ie FMS, JMA etc. After all an invest belongs to the JTWCs who generally intiate later than the RSMCs etc. Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I was referring to more so of say like in the NATL and EPAC/CPAC when an invest is designated (90L, 90E, etc), it's never included in the season total UNTIL it actually forms into a tropical cyclone. I still stand firm on 96P not being counted because even though it was designated as an invest, the JTWC never officially issued advisories on it. I think if we're gonna do this in the future, it needs to be consistent. We agreed on with 01Q that because NOAA did issue advisories on it, it was technically a storm in the SATL. In this case, since neither JTWC or TCWC Wellington issued advisories on it or monitored it as an actual (sub)tropical cyclone, it shouldn't be included. Gumballs678 talk 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming we're still going to be including 96P in the "Other systems" section of the South Pacific season article, right? I didn't think that was part of this discussion, but just making sure. It should still be noted, just not counted in the seasonal totals for anything since its 100% unofficial. It seems like we have a consensus for this article though, or are close atleast, unless anyone has anything else to comment? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I haven't noticed the discussion as I wasn't tagged. I personally don't mind as long as we have a clear consensus. First of all, the reason JTWC didn't initiate advisories is because it was a subtropical system by their analysis although it had gale force winds. Another example about JTWC calling a system subtropical is Guambe, when it was an invest as a subtropical depression. You guys would know that JTWC doesn't initiate advisories for Tropical Depressions such as Tropical Low in AUS region from BoM which is included in our articles because BoM(RSMC)'s classification. Meanwhile, MFR also called Guambe subtropical depression while not initiating advisories on it, which made it go to "Other Systems" but counted as RSMC mentioned it as (sub)tropical system. In case of Surigae, JTWC continued advisories as subtopical storm as it was tropical before. So, just because JTWC didn't do advisories doesn't mean it's not considered as (sub)tropical cyclones (similar cases like Ana this year too). Sorry for keep talking around, but one thing I'm sure: JTWC only does warnings for SHEM when: a system becomes tropical cyclone (not sub) with 35kt+ winds (or when it is threatening land while tropical depression, example: 18S). So, it very well stands that it was a subtropical storm by JTWC analysis, while a low per TCWC Wellington (though I wonder: are there any examples of TCWC Wellington designating systems as TC although FMS doesn't - I would like to get answers about it). Also, for 01Q, only reason it was included as unofficial system was because of SAB. We would need a better consensus as the time passes by. Would like to hear more replies, sorry for making this too long Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, after having a bit of more look on past systems, I have seen Katie in 2015 and Lexi in 2018. They were both outside of RSMC's AOR while no official agencies except NOAA called it subtropical cyclones, and none has provided advisories/warnings as far as I have seen. Since they were included in main TCs in 2015 & TCs in 2018 articles, I don't see how 96P shouldn't be included for now. I am not sure if they were included in seasonal totals, but they weren't mentioned as "unofficial" in the TCs in year articles. (they are mentioned as unofficial in main season articles though - because outside AOR) Anyway, subtropical cyclones in these areas are pretty rare and officials are kind of weird too about them, so I think it's best to include it as unofficial system here too. Keep in mind that this is my first year trying to make clear consensus on TCs in year articles, so I will mainly focus on 2021 one for now. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this should be added again, due to the reasonings above that JTWC considers it as a subtropical storm. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kern Choi 5, I think we should closed it without further continuing it, since we have reached to a consensus. If there's any confusion about it, then there will be separate discussion on the WPTC talk page Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 11:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

add free on the timeline Emmmacron51 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fred* Emmmacron51 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should put the image of the most notable storm of the month (SotM) for each monthly section. Doing so would allow our readers to easily know which storm was the most impactful during the month by just looking at the image and clicking the link below it. Thoughts? Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @

Layah50, and HurricaneEdgar: for input, as they frequently edit the article. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 00:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

...Sam was nowhere near as strong as Chanthu in sustained winds and Chanthu had actual land impacts. Sam was 155 mph. Chanthu was 180 mph. The September summary should remain the same. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)

15:20, 29 October (UTC)

I also feel like the sustained winds on the (list) should be changed or split into two. Like the Pacific Typhoon has the 10 min sustained while the Hurricanes has the 1 minite sustained winds. On the September summary, my error was seeing that Chanthu's wind says 215 (130) and Sam's wind says 250 (155). This made me think Sam was stronger than Chanthu but it wasn't. Therefore I suggest something should be done with the wind graph on this list.

Layah50

2:14, 29 October (UTC)

I think we should continue using the current system. Its always been for the strongest systems and highlighting the most damaging storm of the month is what the section *below* the image is for. You only add 2 images if 2 storms are close in intensity or one was particularly notable and strong. However I do agree if theres a strong storm that did a lot of damage then that can be added as a second image alongside the actual strongest. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Page for 2022 yet? because 2021 will end so Page is needed for Tropical cyclones in 2022. Daniel boxs (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...because 2021 isn't over and there's no active tropical cyclone that looks like it'll cross years? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should make a draft for when the first storm forms, and have Tropical cyclones in 2022 redirect to Tropical cyclones by year (as it is currently). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]