Talk:South Atlantic tropical cyclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tropical cyclones (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the tropical meteorology articles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Anomalous tropical cyclone articles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is a current nominee for the Tropical Cyclone Collaboration of the Fortnight.
WikiProject South America (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Locations of advisories[edit]

Brazilian Navy Hydrographic Center:

Portuguese: Bulletins // Warnings // Weather Maps
English: Bulletins (fqst02) // Warnings (wwst02)

Systems[edit]

  • Subtropical Depression
Best status: 30 knots 1006 hPa
Subtropical depression first appeared 2016-01-05, 1200z @ 19°S 34°W
Bulletins
2016-01-05, 1200z
2016-01-06, 0000z 1200z
2016-01-07, 0000z 1200z
Weather maps
2016-01-05, 1200z
2016-01-06, 0000z 1200z 1200z (amended)
2016-01-07, 0000z 1200z
  • Subtropical Storm Deni
Best status: 40 knots 998 hPa
Subtropical depression first appeared 2016-11-15, 1200z @ 24°S 44°W
Subtropical Storm Deni first appeared 2016-11-16, 0000z @ 26°S 44°W
Bulletins
2016-11-15, 1200z
2016-11-16, 0000z 1200z
2016-11-17, 0000z
Weather maps
2016-11-15, 1200z
2016-11-16, 0000z 1200z
2016-11-17, 0000z
  • Subtropical Storm Eçaí
Best status: 55 knots 992 hPa
Subtropical Storm Eçaí first appeared 2016-12-05, 0000z @ 28°S 44°W
Bulletins
2016-12-05, 0000z 1200z
2016-12-06, 0000z 1200z
2016-12-07, 0000z
Weather maps
2016-12-05, 0000z 1200z 1200z (amended)
2016-12-06, 0000z 1200z
2016-12-07, 0000z
  • Subtropical Storm Guará
Best status: 40 knots 996 hPa
Subtropical Storm Guará first appeared 2017-12-09, 1200z @ 21°S 38°W
Bulletins
2017-12-09, 1200z
2017-12-10, 0000z 1200z
2017-12-11, 0000z 1200z
2017-12-12, 0000z
Weather maps
2017-12-09, 1200z
2017-12-10, 0000z 1200z
2017-12-11, 0000z 1200z
2017-12-12, 0000z
  • Tropical Storm Iba
Best status: 47 knots 1006 hPa
Tropical depression first appeared 2019-03-23, 1200z @ 17°S 36°W
Tropical Storm Iba first appeared 2019-03-24, 1200z @ 18.5°S 36°W
Bulletins
2019-03-23, 1200z
2019-03-24, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-25, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-26, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-27, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-28, 0000z 1200z
Weather maps
2019-03-23, 1200z 1200z (amended)
2019-03-24, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-25, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-26, 0000z 1200z
2019-03-27, 0000z 0000z (substituição) 1200z
2019-03-28, 0000z 1200z
  • Subtropical Storm Jaguar
Best status: 35 knots 1010 hPa
Subtropical depression first appeared 2019-05-20, 0000z @ 20°S 40°W
Subtropical Storm Jaguar first appeared 2019-05-20, 1200z @ 24°S 38°W
Bulletins
2019-05-20, 0000z 1200z
2019-05-21, 0000z 1200z
2019-05-22, 0000z
Weather maps
2019-05-20, 0000z 1200z (amended)
2019-05-21, 0000z 1200z (amended)
2019-05-22, 0000z (amended) 1200z
  • Subtropical Storm Kurumí
Best status: 35 knots 998 hPa
Subtropical depression first appeared 2020-01-23, 1200z @ 26°S 40°W
Subtropical Storm Kurumí first appeared 2020-01-24, 0000z @ 28°S 39°W
Bulletins
2020-01-23, 1200z
2020-01-24, 0000z 1200z
2020-01-25, 0000z 1200z
Weather maps
2020-01-23, 1200z
2020-01-24, 0000z (amended) 1200z
2020-01-25, 0000z 1200z

What makes this storm odd?[edit]

This article isn't really clear on what's so odd about the storm. Is it because of the location, or because of the date? Also, what is defined as the Southern Atlantic?

It's odd because it was in the south Atlantic. We don't have an article on the South Atlantic specifically (and probably don't need one). Seasonally, March in the southern hemisphere could be called equivalent to September in the northern hemisphere, smack in the middle of the peak of our hurricane season, so if a cyclone is going to form in the South Atlantic March is not an unusual time for it to occur. What we could use is someone to do a bit of research on precisely WHY cyclonic storms are so rare in the South Atlantic; I suspect it has something to do with currents and trade winds and so forth but a guess is not what we're looking for. Thehappysmith 21:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This picture is awesome. Show this to the non-believing Brazillian government and see if they still think it wasn't a hurricane. [1]

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a hurricane enthusiast, you should be able to see that the hurricane is rotating in a clockwise direction by the shape of the cloud formations which are in the mirror-image of a comma.
The meteorologists who are employed by the National Weather Service in the U.S.A. know that hurricanes begin in Africa. A mass of hot air will slip out of Africa into the North Atlantic Ocean and generate a trough of low pressure called an EASTERLY WAVE. Clouds develop in Easterly waves. Easterly waves are visible on satellite photographs when they are about 500 miles (800 km) off the coast of Africa.
Africa is less wide in the Southern Hemisphere, therefore, less hot air is produced there to generate Easterly waves.
Easterly waves drift across the ocean along with the trade winds. Only a small percentage of Easterly waves develop into hurricanes.
The North Pacific Ocean sees more hurricanes than does the North Atlantic. The Indian Ocean is the host of many hurricanes, too, which have wreaked havoc in Bangladesh at the Bay of Bengal. 20:49Z June 1st, 2005.

Uh, yeah, I know. What's the point of telling me this?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish that this would say just why the Brazilian government didn't think it was a hurricane. They had to have had some sort of scientific evidence that challenged it somewhere rather than just make baseless claims, since nobody isn't going to think that it's a hurricane just by looking at it. bob rulz July 6, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Isn't propaganda its own reason? They have long been a country that never had to deal with hurricanes - it's a psychological blow. --Golbez July 6, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

I found some great satellite animations of the storm. [2]. This site has a lot of great imagery on it [3]

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Brazilian Meteorologists didn't say it was a hurricane because Meteorology is lame around here. Sorry to troll, but that is fact. I, for one, know of several people that work with it in my University, and it's almost a toy-dept. Most people don't even know, for example, that there are places where it snows every year, that there are Tornadoes in Brazil, and things like these. It doesn't take more than a tourist trip to US to notice how different people treat Met. here and there. Most people around believe Met. is only for telling if they should go to the beach or if it's gonna rain in the weekend. :( nihil 10:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms are so rare in the south Atlantic because of strong shear and cooler waters. That simple. Incidentally, the occurrence of tropical systems where Catrina tracked is predicted by some climate models. There is a lot of information in the two sources I have listed in the article, including the exceptional conditions that allowed the system to form (and I plan to add content time permitting). The Brazilian weather service (Weather Forecasting and Climatic Studies Centre) refused to acknowledge that the system was tropical because of denial of reality, not any empirical evidence; none had been observed before and textbook meteorology says tropical cyclones don't form in the south Atlantic. Meteorologists at the Climaterra Institutes of Santa Catarina and of Santa Catarina University did recognize that it was tropical. So did the NHC, who classified the system, and called the Brazilian government to no avail (they also called some Brazilian radio stations who then gave proper warning). The Brazilian government now admits it was a hurricane. Evolauxia 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the shear argument, but I submit it is more of a lack of disturbances than cool ocean. The waters in the tropical south Atlantic are warm enough for tropical cyclone formation, although the area is of warm water is admittedly smaller than it would be in the North Atlantic and most other ocean basins. You can see the SSTs in the south Atlantic at this link: [4]. Even today (in their very late fall/early winter), 26C water extends far enough away from the equator in the south Atlantic to act as fuel for any possible systems. Thegreatdr 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate Catarina article[edit]

I (strongly) propose a seperate article for 'Hurricane Catarina'. I'm a meteorologist and can attest that this was an exceptional event; and there is so much information that its own article is strongly warranted. Evolauxia 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Second to a new article. Maybe not Hurricane Catarina, but a Cyclone Catarina article would work. This could cover all bases. It may not have been a tropical cyclone, but it was a cyclone of some sort. In addition, don't they call hurricanes cyclones down there? Hurricane Catarina sounds too North Atlantic/EPAC oriented. Regardless, an article should be made. Hurricanehink 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I third the notion. Cyclone Catarina. -- RattleMan 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Done! At least it's a good start, IMO, for a Cyclone Catarina article. Hurricanehink 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that article is a good start and will probably become the best common and well-known source of information on this cyclone on the 'net. When I suggested the new article name I put Catrina in quotes because of the uncertainity on what to name it, but I realize it could look like I was proposing that specific name, sorry for the confusion. It most certainly was completely tropical in nature as is any other tropical cyclone found in any other basin. This is the first storm observed in the western south Atlantic Basin, as such I don't believe there are any naming conventions for what the systems are called, therefore, cyclone is appropriate. Some climatological models have predicted that this would occur and that more activity is likely in the future. Here are some more resources for editors, I intend to add content myself as I have time (I added the Geophysical Research Letters paper and Brazilian conference paper as sources in the main article already).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16505
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/catarina.html
http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications_dir/south_atlantic_cyclone.html
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2004087-0327
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/spotlight/brazil_hurricane.html

Atlantic hurricanes versus Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones[edit]

All current categories for Atlantic hurricanes are for North Atlantic hurricanes. There are several good reasons why this TC should be lumped in with the southern hemisphere basin instead of the N Atlantic basin:

  • Season. The southern hemisphere seasons span 2 years since they run through the southern summer (i.e., the northern winter). If you lump this into the north atlantic season it ends up in the 2004 season and becomes (erronously) one of the earliest-forming storms.
  • Naming. North Atlantic storms are hurricanes. The name for this storm is apparently given as "Cyclone Catarina", though I don't know why.
  • Areas. The Northern Atlantic basin is well-defined. The Southern Hemisphere basin (as the name implies) covers pretty much all of the southern hemisphere (though this is the only South Atlantic storm in the list).

Jdorje 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I made it a cyclone Catarina article intstead of Hurricane Catarina for 2 reasons. One, due to the dispute over whether it was a tropical cyclone or not, it was at least a cyclone of some sort, be it extratropical, subtropical, or tropical. Two, hurricane is a northern hemisphere thing. I'm sorry if I was too bold on calling it a cyclone, but all Southern Hemisphere storms with 74 mph winds or greater are called Cyclones. Hurricanehink 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It definitely became fully tropical (from initial extratropical to subtropical to tropical, a series of events that occurs in the formation of tropical systems in any of the basins). Catarina was no different than any other tropical cyclone with winds at least 74 mph, one just has never been observed in the southern Atlantic before. All southern hemisphere tropical cyclones may be termed cyclones, however, I don't know that's an official convention for the southern hemisphere (though it may be, please cite something if so), rather mere regional coincidences. Hurricane is not a northern hemisphere thing if speaking globally as you know with typhoons the official term in much of the Pacific; and the only reason there is no official term for southern Atlantic tropical cyclones is it's not an area usually conducive for their formation (indeed, again this was the first such system ever observed) thus there was no need for monitoring of this area or naming conventions. Tropical cyclone is the general catch-all term agreed upon internationally, but since in some usages of that term includes all tropical systems, cyclone is fine with me. I've noted the lack of official term in the article. I agree that it should not be lumped in the north Atlantic Basin; though all due effort should be made to denote its anomaly that it's not part of the other southern basins. Evolauxia 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
which[Cyclone Catarina] is named after the region it stuck in Brazil. It has also been called by the name "Cyclone Aldonca." —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdahoPotatoFarmer (talkcontribs) 00:07, December 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • If its winds blow anticlockwise, it is North Atlantic. If its winds blow clockwise, it is South Atlantic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Depression in December '04?[edit]

What? Where did that information come from? The Subtropical storm too. Where did all that stuff come from? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Improvement drive[edit]

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo[edit]

Only thing hugely missing is inline sources. For an article like this that jumps between topics it's important each topic be associated with relevant sources. Jdorje 22:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm in February 2006?[edit]

Over on the Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season page it seems to have been established that a tropical storm formed just a few days ago. Should it be added here? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We need an official statement on it. If not, then it wasn't notable enough for mention. --Golbez 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Who would issue this official statement? — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as we know, it wasn't a tropical storm - AFWA and the HPC noted that it was a warm-core tropical low, but it was never declared a depression, and Dvorak numbers never indicated wind speeds higher than 25 kt. --Coredesat 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no one around to declare it a depression there... CrazyC83 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No one declared the January 2004 storm, and this one at least has Dvorak estimates. Hurricanehink 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, it received unique designators from several sources, like 50L.NONAME from the US Naval Lab, and 01T-ALPHA from the UK Met. Being 90L.INVEST is not a unique identifier, that's the whole point, if an invest doesn't mature then it was just another storm. We are not here to make pronouncements - if a weather journal or meteorological office mentions it in a standard/press release, then we should, but til then, it was exactly what it was - a storm being INVESTigated for tropical cyclone characteristics and possibilities, and which did not reach it, thus being just another warm, vaguely spinning mass of clouds. --Golbez 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about Catarina, not the January 2004 storm... CrazyC83 02:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Hm. Yeah, that dearly needs sources, or it should be deleted. --Golbez 04:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be possible to find "official" sources since there is no official body. But we do need *some* sources. IIRC most sources for Cyclone Catarina are from university researchers; the WMO has information about it and I'm sure it was covered in journals and such. — jdorje (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

While not an official source, wunderground called it a tropical depression, citing the following:

Satellite images and wind measurements from the Quikscat satellite show that a rare tropical depression in the South Atlantic probably formed for a few hours today, but the storm has since been sheared apart by strong upper-level winds, and is not a threat to re-develop. Although the storm was tropical, had a closed circulation, and winds of up to 35 mph (according to the Quikscat satellite), it only had those characteristics for about three hours today. The National Hurricane Center usually does not designate a system as a tropical depression unless it can hold together for at least six hours. The system formed near 29S 36W, about 600 miles southeast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, over waters of about 27 degrees C--well above the 26 C threshold needed for tropical storm formation.

Closed circulation, 30 knot winds - definitely a tropical cyclone to me... CrazyC83 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It's okay to mention, just use sources like some have said; no original research. There were a few "official" statements made, go from that without adding anything original, mainly, don't clasify it a depression or anything unless an official source does. They would have done so if they thought it prudent, agencies were certainly aware of its existence. Evolauxia 07:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If we do put it up, I have some great images to use. Weatherman90 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if similar systems have occurrred several times in the past, or say since the satellite era. If it is mentioned, just list it providing images and just what is known on the facts; but don't say it was unique, as it just happened to be seen by someone closely watching things and others could and likely have been 'missed'. Although there are (scant) agency reports to go from, it's atypical to mention what was only a strong wave that was likely tropical. That's all we really know in that is what I've seen for 'official evidence'. Evolauxia 09:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Very true. However, Dvorak reports would probably justify its existence on Wikipedia. In addition, this blog can be used as a source. Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe this should be put on Wikipedia too. This is a very odd case. On another note, did anyone see the odd eye-like feature in this system? It is severly doubted to be a true eye, but it's interesting nonetheless. -- RattleMan 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, in brief measure. They need to start naming storms in the South Atlantic though... CrazyC83 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a nice picture of it from NASA. [5] Why do they call it Tropical Cyclone Carina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good kitty (talkcontribs)
Um...that's not the tropical cyclone we're talking about, from the South Atlantic. That's Tropical Cyclone Carina from the Southern Indian Ocean. It recently reached 130 knots and 910 mb, a true monster. Definitely not from the South Atlantic, no way. -- RattleMan 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one???[edit]

Thanks to someone over at Storm2k.org, there appears to be another possible one just off the Brazilian coast. You can see it in this image. Hurricanehink 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. Poof! Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SubTropical storm section[edit]

Not to denigrate Jeff Masters at all, but he's only one meteorologist. Do we really need this section without official pronouncements? --Golbez 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to get truly "official" pronouncements. But I agree that one meteorologist's blog is not enough of a source to justify an entire section. — jdorje (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Something from local meteorologists maybe, or any pronouncement from any official body? (like Catarina got) We can't record every swirling cloud in the South Atlantic. --Golbez 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
"Official" sources are hard to come by, especially since there is really no precedent for them to do so (1 hurricane-like storm in how many years?) Additionally, as with the US, government bodies need to be mindful of how they classify and warn about weather features so as not to panic their residents (or in some cases insurance carriers). You could consolidate the links into external links in the paragraph above, eliminating the need for the section, however (IMHO). Ccmhg 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

January 2005 Possible Storm[edit]

Hink linked to Gary Padgett's mention of a January disturbance. Not that I have a PhD, but this looks pretty good. I've been studying images of hurricanes for the better part of three years now and that looks pretty tropical to me. I'm usually pretty skeptical of Padgett; writing a report on everything that moves, but this time I have to agree with him. If we can have a section on Jeff Masters' storms, then I think this Gary Padgett one deserves a 'possible tropical/subtropical cyclone' section too. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As that image seems to be the work of the NOAA, consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons using {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Yonatan talk 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also remember reading this a while back: "On Jan 30, 2005, a low-pressure system near 20.5S/37.5W began to show a few signs of the first stages of evolving towards a subtropical or tropical cyclone. There was a big blow-up of convection and some evidence of upper-level outflow." http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/2005/summ0501.htm Added 5/26/14 by guest

January Subtropical cyclone of 2009[edit]

2009 Subtropical Cyclone, is there any source about it? I looked up the satellite and don't see much going on. And this may look like one [6]. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary Padgets January summuary is the source - [7] Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This one might also be a tropical cyclone, it look no different than a sheared up storm in SPac.[8] HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, they really are bending the definition of "subtropical". Here's an image after landfall, only one i could find. -Winter123 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Anita's Article[edit]

I think that Tropical Storm Anita deserves an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.176.22 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the works. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Current storm (90Q)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/2011 SATL - here's a sandbox in case we'll need one. Otherwise, that'll be what we'll put in the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey!! Please, be careful with the information being published! Part of the given description DOES NOT correspond to Invest 90Q (Arani), neither the photograph!! The article begins with the description of a very short lived subtropical storm which took place in southern Brazil, eastern Uruguay and adjacent Atlantic ocean (near 34S, 53W) [the picture refers to that system] from March 10 to March 11. Arani IS currently taking place in south-eastern Brazil, more than two thousand kilometres from 34S, 53W. Please correct the information, in order to make it reliable. Thanks. Gonzalo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peordemonio (talkcontribs) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arani and Anita[edit]

Through the IBTRACS project, the WMO is calling Anita and Arani tropical disturbances.Jason Rees (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Feb. 2014 Subtropical Depression[edit]

The Brazilian Navy recently declared an upper low off the coast of Brazil as a subtropical depression. Now should it be added to the storm list or is it not noticeable enough? Supportstorm (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Its good to go IMO since the WPC are also providing some details on it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the only reason they noted it was because Brazil did, but I think it should be in the article regardless for the time being. If nothing much becomes of it or for some reason it's deemed non-notable it can be dealt with then. atomic7732 02:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential Sources[edit]

Just dumping this here for now - so it doesnt get lost: Feel free to expand the list though!Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


  • <ref name="College of Earth and Mineral Sciences">{{cite web|author=College of Earth and Mineral Sciences|publisher=Pennsylvania State University|year=2004|accessdate=2009-05-14|title=Upper-level lows|url=https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/upperlevel_lows.html}}</ref>

Other systems[edit]

Just to update everyone as will be seen from the history of the page, I have introduced an other systems section and have chucked several of the possible systems into it. My thoughts are too chuck most subtropical depressions into it as well while leaving out Angola, Catarina, Anita, Arani and Bapo.Jason Rees (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As the Brazilian Navy has started to assign names for tropical and subtropical storms, those depressions are no longer that important for readers. It is also confirmed that storms like Catarina in the future will be classified as hurricanes, not cyclones. -- Meow 05:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
As i stated @Meow: - most will be going into other systems but some depressions maybe notable enough for a full section if there is enough damage.Jason Rees (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
January 2004 and Feb 2006 are two of the best looking systems after Caterina, Anita and Arani. Far better looking then Bapo or the subtropical systems that are shown to be devoid of convection. Why stick them down at the bottom? Matthurricane (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, both weren't recognized by any meteorological agency. Only Gary Padgett recognized them. ABC paulista (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The biggest problem is a lack of info besides them not being recognized, unless there is some decent source of info that you know of @Matthurricane:.Jason Rees (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Angola cyclone track[edit]

Could the 1991 Angola cyclone track map shown in the Diagnostic Report of the National Hurricane Center: June and July 1991, pg 13 (Fig II.A-2.) be used to generate a map for that TC in the Wikiproject? ABC paulista (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Im afraid not as it lacks the underlining data (ie:3S 10E).Jason Rees (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The track can be created since the map given is in a format that can be geo-referenced to extract points. But I don't know the intensities of the points or the exact time each was plotted for. I suppose using satellite data to find the time could be used instead if the points are in either 6 or 12 hour increments. Supportstorm (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We could just upload that image, since it's from NHC. Sure, it won't look the same, but it's reliable and verifiable. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what might have to happen. I'll get to uploading it soon. Supportstorm (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Designations[edit]

Since the second name from the 'new' SAtl tropical cyclone list has been used, then wouldn't there be a designation for it? Or do they do designations already or not yet? Just asking. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because these names given by brazilian Navy are unofficial (they were not designated by the WMO). Still, the NHC gives identifiers for South Atlantic cyclones trough the ATCF System Storm Identification Character String. ABC paulista (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If there is ever any designation from either the US DoD (NHC or JTWC) or another forecasting agency then we will note it if relevant. In the case of BApo no such designations have been made AFAIK.Jason Rees (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing related to tropical or subtropical storms is official in this basin as of today. However, the names from the Brazilian Navy are currently the most quasi-official designations. -- Meow 04:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually it has been accepted by the WMO, that Catarina was hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Still, there's no official meteorological agency, forecasts and/or advisories for the South Atlantic. ABC paulista (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
While there is no officially designated tropical cyclone warning centre for the SATL, there is an official meteorological agency for the purposes of Marine Warnings which hurricanes come under: its called the Brazilian Navy. As a result I do not see why we need the WMO to state that a warning centers are official.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The brazilian official meteorological agencies are the INMET and INPE (CPTEC), still we use the Brazilian Navy's info for updates (probably only because they name the storms). The BNHC naming politics are like the ones of PAGASA or FU Berlin: They name storms independently, without official designations, only for regional advisories. ABC paulista (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I request that mention of the source of the names be made, and perhaps reference to the NHC identifiers be included, as after reading an article such as this http://phys.org/news/2015-03-nasa-rare-south-atlantic-storm.html it took probably longer than it could have to work out this storm is labelled as Cari here. Perhaps all it would need is a note or a reference to the 90Q name.Lacunae (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the need to include the 90Q designator in the article jsut because NASA used, since its nothing more than just a designation for an Invest. Besides which i have seen other designators used by the US for Cari like 90LS.CARI" ("50Q" on images). As for the source of the names its the Brzailian navy afaik, allthough the blurb for Cari needs a clean in my opinon since it can only be named once.Jason Rees (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem about Cari's naming was that CPTEC named the storm 12 hours earlier than Brazilian Navy, even with the latter being the one responsible for storm's naming. It's relevant to the storm IMO, although I think that some re-wording is welcomed.
About 90Q, it's just a designation used by US meteorological agencies, just like 90SL. Both were already cited on Tropical Storm Anita's section. ABC paulista (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep i am well aware that its is a designation used by US meteorological agencies but we do not normally include the invest numbers and i do not see why we need to mention it in both Anita and Cari since it just adds confusion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't defending the inclusion of these designations on Cari's section. Just citing both on Anita's section to acknowledge their existance is sufficient. ABC paulista (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

South Atlantic tropical cyclone[edit]

Earlier today the content of this article was split off in to tow seperate articles without any discussion or prior warning, which while fair enoguh i have reverted because i do not see the need for the articles to be split off at the current time. I feel that the article could be split off at a later date if it is justfied and done properly.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Cari's Track[edit]

Could someone please update Cari's track map, since the last points added were from March 11, and the storm survived for few more days? I don't have access to the TC tracking programs. Thanks. ABC paulista (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the extent to which the NRL tracked the system; we don't have a different best track source. — Iune(talk) 21:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And what about Brazilian Navy's bulletins at the top of this talk page? I can also provide the weather maps if necessary. In Bapo's case, they were used to generate a track until they were replaced bu ASW's Best Track. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have sent a message to the author of ASW's Monthly Global Tracks which is what your reffering to @ABC paulista: to see when his tracks will be out.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
ASW's Cari Best Track is out now. Please, if possible update Cari's track map adding and correcting points like was done with Bapo. Thanks. ABC paulista (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Track map???[edit]

Just asking do you guys think that this article should have a track map? There has been 6 known cyclones in this rare basin so far. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although only 5 of these cyclones would appear on the map, since the Angola Cyclone has only a 12-hour interval track map. ABC paulista (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that should be fine. We do really need it, but I don't know how to make the track map. I'll ask Supportstorm or Cyclonebiskit for this. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To my knowledge there are only three objective tracks that could be used for this basin track map. Not much to work with. Supportstorm (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Three? I see five. ABC paulista (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Two, the latest subtropical storms, were created subjectively by private authors and not by a government organisation. Supportstorm (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
But the Brazilian Navy Hydrometeorological Center is a government organisation, and were assigned by Brazilian government to name and assign storms. Both Arani, Bapo and Cari were assigned by Navy.ABC paulista (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but they did not release track data for those storms and the tracks currently in the article could be original research, or at most, not credible. Supportstorm (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would be very careful about saying that the tracks are not credible or original research, when the author of the current tracking data takes points from the NRL, JTWC etc and I believe but can not publicly prove has had his work used by NASA JPL.Jason Rees (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Not when the authors states that he conducted his own reanalysis for those points. The Australian Severe Weather uses an assortment of data sources which they will annotate. I use them sometimes to recover lost invest data from the NRL. However, we really shouldn't use data that isn't verifiable through an official source or annotated reanalysis like they mostly did for the Bapo and Cari tracks. Supportstorm (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

1974 Cyclone[edit]

What happened to the section on the 1974 subtropical cyclone? Why is it gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.229.152 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The system got moved to other systems since there is not any evidence to say it was a tropical cyclone for certain.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016 status[edit]

@Meow: I believe that the "tropical" status on Brazilian Navy January 5 1200z Bulletin was a typo, because the Weather Map of the same time shows the cyclone as subtropical, and the subsequents bulletins and weather maps continue showing it as subtropical. believe that that "tropical" status is not reliable at all. ABC paulista (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: This is what I am concerning. The Brazilian Navy keeps indicating subtropical on their weather maps and Portuguese bulletins, but English bulletins remain tropical. I am not sure if we should use tropical or subtropical as they are both ‘official’ on 5 January and today. -- Meow 16:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: All right it is tropical now, but the latest Portuguese bulletin calls it subtropical... -- Meow 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If there is some doubt as too if its tropical or not - stick it in the other systems section.Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It will be stick in the other systems section if it doesn't receive a name. ABC paulista (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Amended... Remaining subtropical now... Do not trust English bulletins from Brazil anymore. -- Meow 01:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane or Cyclone[edit]

Cyclone Catarina has been adopted by Wikipedia for many years, because of its location (Southern Hemisphere) and being considered as typical. However, in Brazil, Furacão Catarina (Hurricane Catarina) is much popular than Ciclone Catarina (Cyclone Catarina). Hurricane Catarina is also more popular in English even if the decision of Wikipedia affects its popularity a lot.

Although the term cyclone is described as typical in the Catarina article, it only refers to the summary written by Gary Padgett, which cannot represent most of reports and meteorologists at all. The document by the Brazilian Navy in 2011 indicates not only the name list but the scale. The scale is completely the same to the one that North Atlantic Ocean uses:

  • Depressão Tropical - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície é igual ou inferior a 62 km/h, 38 mph, 33 nós ou Força 6 a 7 na Escala Beaufort.
  • Tempestade Tropical - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície na faixa de 63 a 117 km/h, 39 a 73mph, 34 a 63 nós ou Força 8 a 11 na Escala Beaufort.
  • Furacão - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície é igual ou superior a 118 km/h, 74 mph, 64 nós ou superior a Força 12 na Escala Beaufort.

As the document is currently the de facto standard of the tropical cyclone scale and naming of the South Atlantic Ocean west of 20°W, also with the popularity, my suggestion is to use hurricane completely to all hurricane-force tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic Ocean, including Catarina and future systems, until the World Meteorological Organisation appoints an agency to monitor that basin and changes the scale. -- Meow 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Very clear cut situation here to me. Went ahead and moved the article to Hurricane Catarina accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Image for TS Anita[edit]

The description of the image says it was taken after it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone. Not sure if it's the best image D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed it back to the March 10, 2010, image...not sure when it was swapped to the March 12 one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on South Atlantic tropical cyclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tracks updates[edit]

@Meow: Seeing what you did on adding a SATL tracks summary, please, if possible, could you use the same database(s) to update the individual tracks we have here? It seems that some are outdated, mainly Arani and Cari ones. Thanks, ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have already made them and just need time to upload them all later. Cari is actually updated. -- Meow 16:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ICZ[edit]

The article states that the Coriolis force can't help hurricanes form in the intertropical convergence zone. But haven't hurricanes formed near the equator before? 32ieww (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but those are rare occurences. Normally the Colioris effect so close to the equator is not strong enough to generate spin to start a disturbance. ABC paulista (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Santa Caterina[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that the South Atlantic tropical cyclones have all formed in a certain patch of water near Santa Caterina? What makes this region more favorable than others? 32ieww (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 32ieww (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It is an area that weak non-tropical disturbances from westerlies or the SACZ could interact with warmer sea surface temperature. 🐱💬 01:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on South Atlantic tropical cyclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Iba[edit]

Please note that we can not call the tropical depression in the South Atlantic, a tropical storm or Tropical storm Iba without a source.Jason Rees (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Iba is now official. Will need an archive.org capture of it for a source however. https://www.marinha.mil.br/chm/dados-do-smm/warnings-and-forecasts/warnings X2A3Q (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Image of Iba[edit]

As of March 28 at 19:02 UTC, the image used is Iba on March 26. However, I think that the image on March 25 is better, since it shows Iba being more organized that the other. Sure, Iba is shown being sheared, but there's a lot of thunderstorms near the center and the center is well-defined. It's also near peak intensity, which is 50 mph and a pressure of 1006 mbr. The March 26 image shows Iba becoming less organized and weakening due to wind shear. I remember that at that time, Iba had winds of 40 mph and a pressure of 1008 mbr. The problem I see with the March 25 image is that the image is washed-out due to low resolution and the exposed center of circulation. What do you all think? INeedSupport :3 19:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This image below for March 25 is better than the one above.
I do kinda agree, the March 25 one is a better image for Iba than the March 26 one. Sandy14156 :) 23:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Anita[edit]

@ABC paulista: What is your problem with calling Anita a subtropical storm based on the peer-reviewed journal articles that @Livia Dutra: provided? You claim in one of your edit summaries that it goes "against official statements", however, the only official statements that I can see cited in the article are from WPC who as @Thegreatdr: would tell you are not official and Brazil Met Services whose statement was provided in the immediate aftermath of the system. As a result, I would strongly suggest that we just consider Anita a subtropical storm and partially allow some of @Livia Dutra:'s edits.Jason Rees (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't care much about Anita's classification, but I think that the sources presented are qestionable, so they should be considered with caution. First of all, most of them are mere thesis, not full-fledged studies. Also, at least one of them do consider Anita as a tropical system, countering Livia's argument. Finally, the fact that the user has the same name of one of the authors that are most credited in these studies could be considered as self-promotion, and citing its own work is considered a bias that should be avoided.
Also, not only WPC but also MetSul calls Anita as tropical, and this is a official brazilian meteorological agency, and I do think that these two outweigths the thesis presented. I'm not against the sources that Lívia presented, but I don't think that them alone justify Anita's reclassification. I can see them being cited as a means of saying that there's some disagreement over its nature, but unless some meteorological agencies acknowledge theses sources, I don't think that they should be fully accepted. ABC paulista (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: I have looked at the sources provided by @Livia Dutra: carefully and I am happy to accept them as only two of the sources were written by her. Most of the sources provided by her have been through the peer-review process are, while I assume that the other has been defended by her. As a result, I am happy to accept them and the reclassification of Anita as a subtropical cyclone as Metsul and WPC only called it a tropical system at the time.Jason Rees (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm not. Although only two of them that have the user being credited, the other three has Rosmeri Porfírio Da Rocha credited, which was her thesis's advisor and part of her thesis's exam board, and some other names are repeated, which indicates that they are part of similar research fields and have similar concepts, what could be considered biased. Also, the other three didn't go further on Anita's nature, they only assessed the system as subtropical based on what Livia's first two works stated and worked on based on this info, so they could be considered questionable for addessing this matter.
About the peer-reviewed ones, four of them were published on these journals: Atmosphere published by MDPI, specialized in open-access journals whose credibility and quality are disputed, the relatively unknown UFSM's Ciência e Natura and the both credible JGR and Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. But of the two reliable ones, only the one published on the Quaterly Journal actually studies on about Anita's nature, the others only use it as references.
I actually agree with you that more recent sources could be considered more reliable than older ones, but do you have any proof that Metsul and WPC changed their opinion's about Anita's nature? If not, we should consider their view at the time as their most recent one, and I still stand by the opinion that meteorological agencies' statements holds more weight that academical/scientific journals. Also, not only MetSul or WPC consider Anita tropical, but several other meteorogical agencies consider it as such, even agencies like NWS, CPTEC (arguably the main brazilian meteorological agency, controlled by INPE, a sort of brazilian NOAA) and some PhD's on the area. With all that, I mantain my previous opinion. In this case, weight > recency, and I would like to see other people/group, unrelated to Livia and Rosimeri, reaching similar conclusions and acknowledged by meteorological agencies. ABC paulista (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
While you are allowed to maintain your previous opinion, I strongly feel that the peer-reviewed journals are reliable enough to allow us to say that Anita did not become a tropical storm. I feel that you are putting to much weight to the sources from the meteorological agencies, who only have limited time to put together their forecasts. I also note that the WPC is just a training desk for visiting metorologists and I seriously doubt that any warning center will reanalyise Anita. However, I have asked a contact to do a personal reanaylsis of Anita and will let you know what he thinks.Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, as you may already know, in the project we usually give preference for statements and info that come from meteorological agencies, since they are specialized in meteorology (tropical included), having the biggest know-how in the area, and usually are where we can find most of the experts, doctors and well-reputed scientists in the field. While we do consider other views aside from the agencies, very rarely they supercede the latter ones, and when they do usually their statement/study is endorsed by another meteorolocial agency, and none of Livia's sources has such. Considering that only Livia's group has shown a diverging statement regards Anita, while many others didn't change their position regards the system's nature, I still propose that we do consider their opinions and references, showing that there are some disagreements about Anita's nature, but still mantaining the opinion of the vast majority. I think that that's the best compromise that we can reach, like it was done in other cases like Hurricane Catarina, Tropical Storm Grace and Invest 91C, for example. We have to remember that Wikipedia strives more for reliability, verifiability and the opinion of the majority of the experts than truthfulness per se. ABC paulista (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unknown Tropical Cyclone?[edit]

Hey, so I was looking through images in the NOAA Photo Libary website and then I came across one image with a title saying, "TIROS I image showing cyclone centered at 17W, 45 S in South Atlantic. Monthly Weather Review, July 1961, p. 235." Does anyone have any information about this tropical cyclone? Thanks. Image:

07-1961-Unknown-Tropical-Cyclone.jpg

--SaiTheCyclone (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)SaiTheCyclone

I've never heard of this storm. However, if the caption just says "image showing cyclone", then it doesn't mean it's a tropical cyclone, especially considering how far south it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh my bad. I know what cyclones are but it seems that I have misread the title. Sorry! --SaiTheCyclone (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)SaiTheCyclone
No worries - good find though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)