Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Pacific hurricane season article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Hurricane Template:WPTCarchive

Specialized archives: Pre season, May, June, July, August, September \\ ACE calcs

Other basin talkpages (2012): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere

North America Start‑class Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

September

11E.Kristy - Tropical Storm

Best status from NRL: 50 kt 998 mb

90E.INVEST first appeared 2012-09-09, 1600Z @ 11.5°N 94.0°W

Tropical Depression Eleven-E from NHC 2012-09-12, 1500Z @ 16.7°N 106.0°W

Tropical Storm Kristy from NHC 2012-09-12, 1500Z @ 18.2°N 106.9°W

RSMC Miami Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Storm Kristy

12E.Lane - Tropical Storm

Best status from NRL: 35 kt 1003 mb

91E.INVEST first appeared 2012-09-13, 2300Z @ 14.8°N 117.3°W

MEDIUM from ABPZ10 2012-09-14, 0600Z

TCFA from WTPN21 2012-09-08, 0000Z

Tropical Depression Twelve-E from NHC 2012-09-15, 1500Z @ 14.0°N 123.5°W

Tropical Storm Lane from NHC 2012-09-12, 1500Z @ 12.8°N 123.7°W

RSMC Miami Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Storm Lane

ACE

Should we remove ACE as the section is unsourced? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't have to be sourced, it's only Math. There is no reason to delete it. United States Man (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It is math, but not routine math, see WP:CALC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This explains the importance of ACE. It (along with number of storms) helps classify how active a season is. United States Man (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but do we have a source for storm by storm ACE in the EPAC? That is my main concern. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be a problem. I haven't found anything but I'll keep looking. United States Man (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this just after I saved the last comment. It has everything about this year's storms, including ACE. United States Man (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that reference, is that its based on the operational data and not updated on best track data when its available.Jason Rees (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is better than nothing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It gives an Accumulated Cyclone Energy value that differs from some of the ones we have at /ACE calcs. It's simple math, not much you can do to source it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once I actually agree with TropicalAnalystwx13, it really is just simple math. I trust that there are enough editors on wikipedia that can keep it straight (even without a source). United States Man (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really simple math IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with YE. Simple math is having a source that says 7 deaths in Mexico and 2 deaths in Texas, and then adding them together. Doing ACE is much more involved, summing the squares of every intensity above 33 kts. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple math or not, it still doesn't need to be deleted. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does if we can not find a source. The NCDC fixes the problem for 2000-08 and 2012, but what about other seasons? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fix the problem since NCDC is only preliminary. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says "The (ACE) Index calculations are based on preliminary data." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the data reports for 2010 which state the exact same phrase.Jason Rees (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, ok, thanks for telling me. Still, it is better than nothing, after all, we could also source that and leave a note saying it is not based on post-storm reviews. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Yellow Even said would be the best way to do it. United States Man (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that is impractical. In the Atlantic, that would've excluded one entire storm last year. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hink - Well what do you propose we do then? United States Man (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I've been proposing for years - only have seasonal ACE numbers unless a reputable source has the ACE reflecting the best track. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could do that (or just leave it as is and drop the whole issue). United States Man (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except we have no source for EPAC seasonal ACE. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can use this for if a season was below, normal, or above average. Isn't that what ACE is mainly used for? Comparing seasons? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it include CPHC's AOR storms? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2002 for example is listed right around 100, but our total lists 101 for the EPAC proper (which checks out), with 23 in the CPAC. We can still use that to say what seasons were classified as below, normal, and above average for EPAC proper. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, see 1994 PHS, where that source says it was below normal, but if you add the CPAC ACE in, it is not below-average. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the RFC is over. What should we do? I still think ACE should be removed since there is no source for it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we have to remove it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got these: [1], [2]. Not sure they will work but it is something. United States Man (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are nowhere near reliable sources. Sorry. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. A blog and forum are the worst things but I will keep looking for sources. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more promising. But I still am not sure. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do any reputable sources link to that site, or to him? Is there any evidence he's correct? And, for that matter, does he account for updates after the TCR's come out? Also, for me, the site said "Find someone's arrest record" in an ad at the top. And by the way, why should we add totals for each storm? The purpose of ACE is mainly for the energy of an entire season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has a PHD, but AFAIK, he uses indeterminate advs when counting ACE. The data also used the ATCF, something that is unoffical until 2013. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by why the ACE section keeps being removed, most recently because it supposedly contains original research. It's been allowed in 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, so the rules are obviously being enforced inconsistently in one article or the other. Also, as has been noted previously, it's not really original research since the numbers are calculated from the NOAA's advisories. Skimming this long conversation, the rationale seems to boil down to one of two things:

We might be doing the math wrong
We are forced to remove this useful information even though the math is probably correct and the data it's derived from is not original research because, since this exact table does not appear on the NOAA's website, we aren't allowed to derive it ourselves. We must blindly and dogmatically follow Wikipedia's sourcing policy to the letter, without regard for its intention, because the founding policymakers were infallible. There is no room for common sense exceptions, or to evaluate if the narrow, literal application of a policy is good for Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis.

I think there's a clear and obvious difference between original research and "original math". So let's be clear here: is the objection to this table the fact that the math might be in error, or are we actually, honestly saying that a properly calculated table from well-sourced non-original research is not allowed? DOSGuy (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported the Accumulated Cyclone Energy section ever since I joined Wikipedia. The problem here, after talking with my fellow project members, is not whether or not the math is in error, it's the fact that they cannot find a reliable site to source the math. I don't think its needed either way since, as you said, it is non-original research. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want a project consensus that it is WP:CALC. Once we get that, then, I have a proposal. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it keeps getting removed is because Yellow Evan doesn't want it on there. It seems to me that he thinks that he runs the show and whatever he says goes. I have come up with several sources for ACE but he keeps dismissing them because he obviously doesn't want it on there. As TropicalAnalystwx13 said, it is not original research and does not need a source. United States Man (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should get it's own section. As for the sources, you provided, they are a ) not reliable or b) uses ATCF/operational data. It is debatable on whether it is WP:CALC. Because of this, I opened a straw poll. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Straw poll:Is ACE WP:CALC

Yes

75.180.62.109 (talk)

No

Neutral

Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Using Data for Storms

An edit war has recently flared up over whether the information on Tropical Storm Aletta should be based off of operational advisories or the best track during the season (at the end of the season it is based on TCRs). My question is, which selection of data should be used? --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best track. In reliability, it goes TCR > BT > Operational > ATCF. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aletta's ATCF file was edited the day after it reached its peak, and this is consistent with its BT, but operational advisories say different. I still think it's a good idea to use operational advisories until the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out as the data in the BT could easily be revised. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So could the TCR. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the TCR is less prone to intensity changes as opposed to Best Track, especially for a storm that has only been gone for less than three months. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TCR's sometimes comes out less than three months after a storm is dead. Either way, the fact that it is prone to changes is a non-issue, after all, this is a wiki and things can be changed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then you understand that we should use the operational advisory information until the TCR comes out, correct? By the way..."All PDF reports and a seasonal track map will be available after the season ends". TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that the Best Track data for Aletta cannot be cited yet because it is only available in .KMZ and .ZIP format. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not able to be cited? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)We don't use the running best track. We use operational data until the TCR comes out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) has always used the running best track (not the ATCF). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only for track maps, since that format is easier for him than using the individual advisories. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He used the BT here .Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was two years ago YE, I'm pretty sure standards have changed since that time. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Operational Best Track is subject to change until the TCR is out so it's not set in stone. That said, for storm intensity, unless an upgrade is made in the running best track after the fact, it's best to use the operational data to avoid confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Aletta's intensity was upgraded, which is what started this edit war. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was updated, not upgraded. If a storm was upgraded to a hurricane, or something major like that, that would warrant changing it, but otherwise I think we should use operational until TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any changed to Daniel? ATCF had it at 95 knots, is it 100 knts in the BT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was 95 knots in ATCF, but the operational advisory put it at a 100 knot major hurricane. There's another reason ATCF should not be used... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the BT put it at 100 knots? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the operational data. United States Man (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the RBT since the information is released 12-24 hours after a storm is affixed in a certain position, and is thus revised. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 01:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The advisories are seen by millions and republished by newspapers across the world. The TCR is thoroughly analyzed and becomes official. The RBT, although it does come from the NHC, can be liable to change, and although the RBT is the basis for the BT, it does not become the BT until the analysis done meticulously by the professionals in the TCR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus via WPTC IRC has been that "only NHC basins will use operational advisories, followed by their Tropical Cyclone Reports, unless a major, significant category change has occurred (TD/TS; TS/H), in which the RBT will be used." We are seeking any additional input to make this "guideline" for intensity input final. --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 02:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that advisories are released at 0300Z, 0900Z, 1500Z and 2100Z, while RBT has data points for 0000Z, 0600Z, 1200Z, and 1800Z. The intensities do not necessarily have to match up along all points due to the 3-hour offset. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TAM, per WP:OFF, IRC can not used as a consensus, BTW. Tito, you are correct. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YE, you even agreed to it on IRC. The people who had the initial disagreement were all on IRC when the discussion ended. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I did, and I still agree to it as a compromise. All I said is that IRC cant be used as a consensus (unless the rules have changed since then) and that Tito is correct on how advisories are released. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I believe that the TCR is out for Aletta. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OT: We are kinda screwed

I know this is kinda off-topic. but I am putting it here as there is likely more interest. Recently, I gave all EPAC seasons an article back to 1949. However, I am concerned about notability for the 1953 Pacific hurricane season, one of our newer season articles. None of the storm affect land or any ships, there is no MWR, no CPHC report, so we are down to two sources, and none outside the EPAC book and HURDAT. Google search gives me junk. After talking to Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), he initially said to merge 1953 with List of Pacific hurricane season, but the actual storm summaries would be lost, hence its not a merge, it just is a redirect. He also said that a merge into 1950-1954 Pacific hurricane seasons could help, but that borders WP:NOT, not to mention that IMO 1950 and 1951 are article-worth along with maybe 1952 and 1954. I personally feel its best to Ignore all rules and wait and see. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we had talked at some point having Tropical cyclones in 2002. If we have that for every year going back to, say, 1950, we could include that there? That'd be a solution for other season articles that have minimal activity. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that could be a dab page. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]