Talk:2022–23 South Pacific cyclone season

Location of advisories

RSMC Nadi

Marine Bulletins

Tropical Disturbance Summary

Tropical Cyclone Naming Bulletin

Tropical Disturbance Advisory

International Marine Warnings

Cyclone Gale/Storm Warnings

Cyclone Hurricane Warnings

Cyclone Track Maps

5-Day Tropical Cyclone Outlook

Special Weather Bulletins

Northern Cook Islands

Southern Cook Islands

Fiji

Kiribati

Niue

Tokelau

Tuvalu

TCWC Wellington

Cyclone Gale/Storm Warning

Cyclone Hurricane Warning

Marine Weather Bulletin for Subtropic

Marine Weather Bulletin for Forties

Marine Weather Bulletin for Pacific

Marine Weather Bulletin for Southern

TCWC Melbourne

Special Weather Bulletins

Solomon Islands

Local meteorological centers

NWS Pago Pago, American Samoa

Metéo-France Tahiti, French Polynesia

Metéo-France Noumeá, New Caledonia

Metéo-France, Wallis and Futuna

Samoa Meteorological Service

Tonga Meteorological Service

Vanuatu Meteorology and Geo-hazards Department

JTWC:

ABPW10

AUS Cyclone 1 \\ AUS Cyclone 2 \\ AUS Cyclone 3 \\ SPAC Cyclone 1 \\ SPAC Cyclone 2 \\ SPAC Cyclone 3

Other links

Tropical Disturbance Advisories Archives

JTWC Archive

Best track

MT Archive

Tropical Disturbance 03F

The section about 03F does not seem complete, so this needs to be fixed. Wikieditorperson1 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Judy

Hi @HurricaneEdgar, Vida0007, and JCMLuis: Just to make you guys aware, I decided to make a start on Cyclone Judy in mainspace, as it was a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone that directly impacted Vanuatu as a Category 4 Severe tropical cyclone. I was unaware that you guys had already started to make a draft article on it and have incoroprated what you have written as its MH into it. Regards, Jason Rees (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the two pages have been merged now. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Vida0007 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Kevin

Since it made a similar track with Judy, and is currently a C4 (which possible intensification still arm in the future). Shall we make an article about it? Typhoonnerd (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to have a look at how we present the articles for Severe Tropical Cyclone's Judy and Kevin and possibly have one overall article rather than two seperate ones. My thinking behind this is that because the two systems impacted the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu within a couple of days of each other, it is one overall disaster rather than two seperate disasters. I also strongly suspect that it will be hard to seperate the impacts out and that Vanuatu will request international aid for both systems rather than one or the other. I will also note that I previously proposed that we merged Cyclone's Eric and Nigel of 1984-85 and the general consensus was that it was a good idea but ultimately it hasnt happened yet due to time.Jason Rees (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Although both cyclones have affected similar areas in a few days prior. However, Kevin has been identified as a Category 5 by FMS, which exceeds Judy's intensity. It is possible to feature Kevin with the same article with Judy. However, the layout and title could be relatively confusing as there are less articles for reference. I think Kevin deserves its own article instead of merging it with Judy. Typhoonnerd (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Typhoonnerd, that this is also a similar event to Typhoon Molave, Typhoon Goni, which caused widespread damage. HurricaneEdgar 03:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar and Typhoonnerd: While Kevin and Judy probably deserve to be dealt with separately based on their individual meteorological histories, the problem we have is that they are the same disaster and the sources will ultimately end up reflecting that. I can't see for example the Government of Vanuatu issuing separate damage totals or saying that x was caused by Judy and Y was caused by Kevin as it is pretty much going to be impossible. I don't see that there will be much confusion about the format as the only change we would need to make would be to split the MH section into two ie Judy/Kevin. As for the title and the article histories, we can just set up redirects to the overall article.Jason Rees (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and have a go at merging them in order to see what it would look like.Jason Rees (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This needs separate articles. At least in the case of, say, Amanda and Cristobal, we had the justification of Cristobal forming from the remnants of Amanda. These are two more or less unrelated cyclones, say like Fay and Gonzalo 2014. The systems striking Vanuatu within a short span of each other isn't really a good justification for a merger. And any impacts due to the systems will also be mixed with the earthquake. While conceivably we could have one article for the combined impacts of the three disasters, I don't think this justifies merging the articles of two TCs which are meteorologically unrelated. And it would be as much OR to also exclude the effects of the earthquake from the Impacts section of the combined article. JavaHurricane 16:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Made a discussion on the article's talk page due to lack of consensus to create the article. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: We do not need separate articles for every tropical cyclone, especially when our sources are not considering them to be separate events. It isn't just about them hitting Melensia in such a short time but following our sources which are not seperating out the damages. This includes Vanuatu NDMO which is not even going to assess any dmaages until after the systems have dissipated. I would be happy to note any impact from the earthquake in the article but I highly doubt that it caused any.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This only creates an absolute hodgepodge, a mess of an article combining three events. Better to have separate articles for the MH, and a single article for impacts, in that case. JavaHurricane 17:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yaku

Yaku is being described as an unorganised tropical cyclone by Peru's NMHSS (Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología del Perú), which brings the temptation to add it as an official TC in the season article. However, I am not sure how to do so since it isnt being rated on the Australian or Saffir-Simpson scales and nor do i have any data on it bar whats in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just put it in an "other system" section for now since Yaku is not an official TC per the FMS, BOM, or MetService (official TC warning agencies for the SPAC). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 01:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I would argue not adding it, since it's not within the AOR of any official agency (120°W, while that thing is much closer to Ecuador at 80°ish W), unless you recognize JTWC as an official agency. Regards, 👦 12:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's common practice to add Southeast Pacific TC's (like Yaku) into an other system(s) section. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well in my previous talks with @Jason Rees:, that practice will likely end, as official agencies do not recognize any of those storms. Besides, I think it'll fit on the Tropical cyclones in 2023 article, and I heard an article of its own is in the works due to its impacts. Regards, 👦 12:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nino Marakot: In this case the problem we have is that one of the NMHSS of the South Pacific (Peru), has supposedly declared it to be an unorganised tropical cyclone and thus our hands are tied. However, how much weight we give it is debatable. You can argue that they arent one of the official TCWCs for the region, but they do have the responsbility for issuing marine warnings for the area, just like the FMS/MetService/BoM/PNG NWS do for the SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hale

For the record, within their report to the WMO's RA V Tropical Cyclone Committee, the FMS has announced that while TC Hale had gales associated with it, they were never located near the centre and thus it did not meet the criteria for what is a named tropical cyclone. As a result they have downgraded it to a tropical depression. I have already made most of the changes to the season pages but felt the need to note it here for future reference.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal Summuary

Leaving this here for the record and so I dont forget about them, the FMS has publically released a tropical cyclone report for TC Irene archived here and a seasonal summuary (archived here).Jason Rees (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Gabrielle

I think it is worth having a conversation about Gabrielle's peak intensity, as it seems that we have a couple of different intensity estimates from the BoM, Nadi and Wellington, which is causing some confusion. For starters, Steve Young's tracking data for Gabrielle shows that operationally the BoM was in charge of the system when it peaked, which is backed up by page 12 of Nadi's seasonal summary. At the time they estimated that it peaked as a Category 3 TC with winds of 41.2 metres per second (80 kn; 150 km/h; 90 mph) which is backed up by its database and public report. It is worth noting that this is the estimate that Nadi used operationally in the public bulletins that they did issue eg Hurricane, Marine, ICAO. Now let's turn our attention to Nadi's seasonal summary, which for some bizarre reason provides several different intensity estimates for Gabrielle within it and raises several questions over how reliable Nadi's estimates are since they did not fully monitor Gabrielle. The first of these estimates is on the front cover, which shows that Gabrielle was a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone on both edges of its AOR. Table 2.2 on page 7 shows that Gabrielle peaked with winds of 43.7 metres per second (85 kn; 155 km/h; 100 mph), while page 12 shows that Gabrielle peaked with winds of 41.2 metres per second (80 kn; 150 km/h; 90 mph), both of these estimates would make it a Category 3 severe tropical cyclone. It is also worth noting that Nadi has not presented its BT for Gabrielle as it would As a result, I feel that we should ignore the estimates provided by Nadi in its seasonal summary for the time being and revert to the BoM's overall estimate of 80 knots.Jason Rees (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)