Talk:North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone

what was the frist Cyclone to be named? and when?

anyone known when they started to give names, not numbers, to cyclones in India and when? Kanga-Kucha

The first officially named cyclone was Severe Tropical Storm Onil in October of 2004. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was Tropical Storm Aurora in 1983 as well, Hink, but it is unknown why that storm was named. 76.235.214.247 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How far back?

Just so we can start the debate, how far back should it go? Is the current format acceptable? I personally thought that this basin deserves its own seasonal articles, so this is what I did. Comments, questions, additions, corrections? Hurricanehink 02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1985, absolute maximum. There is hardly any information past that time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the JTWC archive? They have storm info back to the early 80's, so a 1980 cut off date could work. I'm not trying to be disagreeable or anything (remember the Atlantic archive :) ) but there is some info. If we chose a 1980 cut off would it be sufficient to write a sentence or two about the storms with unknown history (just track and dates for Unknown Storm 1), or should those storms be omitted? Also, should we put links to notable North Indian storms that already have articles on the main page that are pre-1980 (like the 1970 Bangladesh cyclone) or leave them as is? Final question (horay!), should 2004+ storms that received names by forecasting agencies other than JTWC have their names in the title? Ogni, for example, was named (can't remember who by off the top of my head), but JTWC called it TS 1A. Sorry for all the questions, just want a general concensus for this basin article.

One last thing (not a question). Unisys isn't everything. If they call something Subtropical Cyclone 1, it really means it was a Cyclone. Likewise, if it is Sub Depression 2, it is just a TD. Just thought I'd throw it out. Hurricanehink 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. A couple things:

The only storms we have before 1980 are 1970 Bhola cyclone and 1737 Calcutta cyclone. Going back to 1970 might be good.
The JTWC hurdat data goes back to 1945. However the further back you go (anything before 1990, it seems) the worse the data is. Far enough back (~1970) it has no strength info only positions. See [1] (User:Jdorje/Tracks).

Jdorje 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is all right, I am going to make a Pre-1980 North Indian cyclon seasons article. This could cover all the important cyclones in that period. Hurricanehink 14:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, it's done! That was really fast, but worth it as the 2nd finished basin. What basin will be finished next??? Hurricanehink 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation ?

Why is this article categorized as a "disambiguation" class ?
HERB 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...good question ;-). I suppose in a way it can serve as a dab, since North Indian cyclone season probably redirects here. Anyway, whether it's a DAB or not, it needs to be consistent with all the other basin season lists. Jdorje 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The others are start class so I've changed this to that...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Sea Storms

I was just wondering, since they're so rare, is there anyway of creating a list or category of Arabian Sea Cyclones? Because, it can get confusing and annoying when I try to research them. I always thought that Arabian Sea storms should be some what seperated from the Bay of Bengal.--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't be. The reason why is because the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal both make up the same basin. In other words, the North Indian Ocean is made up of 2 different bodies of water, so they shouldn't be seperated. Besides, the Arabian Sea isn't always less active than the Bay of Bengal. The seas alternate between activity each season; sometimes the Arabian Sea is more active, and sometimes (though most of the time) the Bay of Bengal is more active .No 2 seasons are exactly alike. There is no "2008 Arabian Sea cyclone season" or "2008 Bay of Bengal cyclone season", because they both have to make up one season because usually, if the Bay of Bengal is active, the Arabian Sea has nothing, and vise versa. 76.235.205.44 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-time names?

Why does the IMD use their names sequintially? Why don't they have our kind of list in which the names rotate, or the west Pacific list in which it has no schedule? It just confuses me because it's like retiring an entire list of names each year, whether or not they are signifigant. Why do they have sequential lists? 99.52.153.15 (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but maybe because they don't have much activity there. On average, only one or two named storms form there per year. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Change that to three-four named per year. But that's still low. I dunno but even the West Pacific and other basins use this type of list. --UltimateDarkloid (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of names though, so shouldn't they have a list like the West Pacific, when it starts then goes on endlessly? We won't get a ton of retired names, for real, because storms like 2008's Nargis are rare, and if Nargis was on the West Pacific list, then if it is retired, the replacement name doesn't have to be an "N" name. 99.52.153.15 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring?

Why doesn't the IMD retire names after seasons like us? Or do they? I think they should retire names if the storm is notable enough. Why don't they retire names? 76.235.205.44 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the names are used sequentially and once only. -Ramisses (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they used sequentially? The list in this case is like the South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season list. Why do they have to be used sequentially? It isn't like the West Pacific list in this case because they retire names. It's just a waste of names. Why is it like this? 76.235.205.44 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its just way the members of the WMO/ESCAP Tropical Cyclone Committee have decided to do it Jason Rees (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]