Talk:November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone

Merger proposal

I propose that 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone be merged into Typhoon Nuri (2014). I think that the content in the 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone article can easily be explained in the context of Typhoon Nuri (2014), and the Typhoon Nuri (2014) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There are detailed reasons why this article should be merged into:

• They are officially the same system. Nuri became an extratropical cyclone as a severe tropical storm, and it immediately began to rapidly intensity. Melor and Ida cannot be the cases, as they dissipated or got absorbed before intensifying.
• Japanese media mentioned the extratropical cyclone as “former Typhoon No. 20” (元台風20号 in Japanese). American media mentioned it as “Post-Tropical Cyclone Nuri” or simply “Ex-Nuri”. The name of “2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone” is only a Wikipedia creation.
• Hurricane Bertha (2014), which affected the Europe significantly as an extratropical cyclone, uses only one article.
• The system underwent bombogenesis before entering the Bering Sea.
• The contents in the 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone article are just the partial duplications of Typhoon Nuri (2014) with moderate additions of impacts.
• The November 2014 North American cold wave article or something similar will be much important in the future.

 Meow 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Immediately merge - We should stop confusing readers as soon as possible. -- Meow 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree: Typhoon Nuri is not the same storm as it was, and it is a bad idea to merge an article this new. Aside from that, this is not a tropical cyclone but is a completely different type of storm, even though at one point that was otherwise. The article, in my opinion, at least, is unique enough that it is by no means a requirement that it be merged. And regarding the word "bomb", I am not sure of when that was added, but in any case, the name "2014 Bering Sea cyclone" simply describes the storm as is and requires no inventing. "Ex-Nuri" is used by Weather Underground, but The Weather Channel is using "superstorm" and other sources just refer to it as "Bering Sea storm" while having a side mention that it was borne from the remnants of the typhoon. Confusion is not likely, as very few people are actually going to start out by typing in "Typhoon Nuri" if they are looking for the extratropical cyclone. It takes very little effort to find the article, so confusion is unlikely. Dustin (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It was officially and known as the same system, and the context in the 2014 Bering Sea bomb cyclone article is not unique at all. If you are afraid of the difficulty of searching for the extratropical article, you can mention it in Nuri’s introduction and make a redirection. The similar case is Hurricane Bertha (2014)— it is not separated into two articles. -- Meow 09:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Meteorologically speaking (which disregards impact), that post-tropical storm was definitely less significant than the Bering Sea cyclone by a very great degree. The Bering Sea cyclone had a pressure as low as a Category 5 tropical cyclone, and it is the lowest of its kind in any nearby area ever recorded. Dustin (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Do you know what you were talking about? The “post-tropical storm” and the Bering Sea cyclone are the same system. They cannot be compared because they are the one. -- Meow 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • And I already gave my own counter-reasoning to that argument, and you are just repeating what you have already said. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree: Weather Channel hurricane expert, Eric Mastel, and winter weather expert, Tom Niziol, had an on-TV discussion while Nuri was still a Category 4-equivalent typhoon that actually talked about a low-pressure system over eastern Siberia (near Vladivostok) on a collision course with Nuri to create the bomb. The reason why this storm on a collision course with Nuri wasn't technically an Aleutian low proper is because it was headed due eastward over not the Bering Sea but the Sea of Okhotsk, while tropical storm-equivalent Nuri was skirting the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula... and both systems just happened to collide less than 30 miles off the Kamchatka coast, north of Attu Island if I'm not mistaken. 2602:306:BCA6:8300:7D15:9CA9:B7F3:B22E (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No matter what the conditions were, Nuri and this bomb cyclone are exactly and officially the same system. Your reasons cannot support your disagreement. -- Meow 09:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know exactly what the IP was referring to, but The Weather Channel did say this: "Nuri would join up with the jet stream and a very strong disturbance in the mid-latitude belt of westerly winds, developing into an extremely powerful non-tropical storm over the Bering Sea, near the western Aleutian Islands of Alaska." "a very strong disturbance" would obviously be referring to a different system which would not be Typhoon Nuri, so the IP's reasoning remains valid. Maybe they are "officially" the same system, but they de facto differ in several ways. Dustin (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The Weather Channel is not an official agency. They even name some thunderstorms. -- Meow 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Since when did The Weather Channel name thunderstorms? In any case, what is "official" isn't what is "reliable", and it is a terrible view to support such ideas as only using what is official. That argument is dead to me, as it shows heavy bias. If we only regarded what was "official", then we would also be disregarding every single reference to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, the Ocean Prediction Center, and everything else. If there is a reason for merging this article somewhere, it is not that the JMA is "official" and Wikipedia has to follow after it for that reason. Dustin (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • When the info presented here differs from the official RSMCs, we disregard them. When the infos are not conflicting, we take both in consideration. That's haw stuff works usually here. There's nothing more reliable than professional and official info. ABC paulista (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge: Since the typhoon and the bomb are considered to be the same storm by JMA, which is the official meteorological center of that area, there's no reason to keep the articles separated. In every other similar cases, both tropical and extratropical phases of the cyclone were kept in the same article, so I don't see why the case should be different with these ones. ABC paulista (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Even the Ocean Prediction Center still calls it Nuri now. Besides, if the cold wave is really extreme and going to cause damage to the United States significantly, I would expect an independent article for the cold wave. -- Meow 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this logic (ABC). What is official doesn't dictate what goes on on Wikipedia. What Wikipedia can do is what can be supported by reliable sources, and this storm is much more unique than Typhoon Nuri when compared to other storms. Also, what is official in Japan has absolutely nothing to do with a storm that has impacts almost entirely confined to the Western Hemisphere. By this kind of logic, we wouldn't have any coverage of the Bering Sea cyclone at all had the formation of the storm not involved a tropical cyclone contributing to the storm. No; even when you disregard the typhoon completely, the storm still maintains independent notability, and a merge is only unhelpful and unnecessary, and the very suggestion of it was premature and disregards the work already put into the article. Dustin (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the JMA is the regional meteorological center of that area, what is official to them is official to the WMO, so this bomb and Nuri are officially the same storm worldwide. And other artcles with "multi-phases" cyclones have info on both stages well covered, like Hurricane Bertha (2014) and 1991 Perfect Storm. In both cases, the 2 phases of the storm had enough notability to have their own article (their extratropical stages were more notable than ex-Nuri in terms of damage), but they were kept together without prejudice on the information. I don't see why in this case things would be different. ABC paulista (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per above Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I argue that the above arguments are invalid. They are only the same storm by technicality, and Alaskans sure as anything are not referring to the storm as "Typhoon Nuri", because it is not a typhoon. How about if the storm had just randomly formed from a previously insignificant system? Some crummy article section in a typhoon article which few people will look at which has very little potential for expansion, illustration, or otherwise, does not help, and aside from that, the articles have completely different targets. The typhoon article reaches toward people in East Asia while the cyclone article primarily targets North Americans. The North Americans, primarily Alaskans, can be expected to have far more interest in the Bering Sea cyclone than some tropical cyclone which is for all it matters mostly irrelevant to them. Dustin (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue is a tricky one. Given that they were the same overall system for the most part, I am slightly in favor of a merger. Right now, I assume that most readers that if merged, that the readers coming to the article for the info regarding the typhoon, not the extratropical cyclone. The reason is that Nuri was more important as a typhoon than an extropical cyclone. If Nuri was not a significant typhoon, then I don't think the extratropical portion of the cyclone would have had its chance to be significant, so that argument does not really apply. However, if this becomes truly historic (which there is a halfway decent shot IMO at happening), then I'd agree with keeping them separate. It's not yet. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We can merge and rename the article, to a name that covers both phases of the cyclone. ABC paulista (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of Typhoon Nuri and 2014 Bering Sea superstorm are now bolded in the Typhoon Nuri (2014) article. I do not think readers will think that the article will not be regarding to the extratropical cyclone. -- Meow 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What about Typhoon Nuri - Bering Sea Bomb cyclone complex? ABC paulista (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to Typhoon Nuri (2014)– Blatant and useless content fork, no need for discussion really. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have brought up legitimate concerns which you completely ignored, so I restored the article. Is there a way of containing information in the same place without having this bias towards "tropical" systems and East Asia? I don't know. Maybe there is some sort of legitimate way of doing this, but the way it currently is suggested, several instances of unfair bias are prevalent. It does make me recall a previous unrelated idea regarding certain extratropical cyclones (especially winter storms), however, which gives me another idea which would still involve the the relevant material being separate from "Typhoon Nuri (2014)", at least. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, would the subject not still be of significance had Typhoon Nuri had no part in its formation? I dare say it would still be of significance, a storm with a pressure lower than many Category 5 tropical cyclones and with unique traits when compared to Nuri. I believe the primary reason for which some have referred to the extratropical cyclone as "Nuri" is because it is an excuse to call it something more specific than just "the storm in the North Pacific". I still have to collect more information to be sure, but why can we not have a primarily Meteorological history-oriented article like with some tropical cyclones? It is possible for a system to be of significance without being tropical or having major impacts. Dustin (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Still, they are the same cyclone, since this bomb is just Nuri that transitioned to a Extratropical Cyclone and had a Explosive Development. Separating them would give the impression that they are different entities, what is just wrong.

They are part of the same cyclone, since Nuri's LLC didn't dissipated. Nuri formed, deepened into a Category 5 Super Typhoon, weakened over colder waters to a Tropical Storm status, transitioned to a extratropical cyclone, exploded into a bomb and now is in a weakening trend; and Nuri's circulation never dissipated in this process, so they are the same storm.

We have plenty of independent non-tropical cyclone's articles (Nor'easters, European Windstorms, North Pacific Bombs, etc), but that's not the case here. They are the same cyclone, and must be treated like that. I brought a proposal for a name that's not biased towards to one stage of the cyclone.ABC paulista (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it would not be significant had Typhoon Nuri not played a role in its formation since it would not have gotten as strong. In general, I don't have a problem with MH-oriented non-TC articles; however, it makes sense to combine the two since they were the same overall system. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide reasoning as to how, meteorologically speaking, the cyclone is not significant when compared to other extratropical cyclones (ignore Typhoon Nuri)? Try me. Dustin (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is less likely that a fully non-tropical-origin low entering the Gulf of Alaska in the exact same conditions would have gotten as strong as Nuri due to the lack of tropical energy that Nuri had. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} for that claim; the low pressure had already filled in by a huge amount already before the pressure started to drop again as a result of extratropical processes. In any case, I think I have an alternative solution. Please though, wait just one more day to plan it all out. If I don't manage by then (end of tomorrow), the decision to be made should be made based on the most valid reasoning as interpreted here by someone/some people uninvolved with tropical cyclones (or other weather). Dustin (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked for meteorological reasoning, and I gave you some. There's a clear consensus to merge. This is a simple clear cut in-project discussion. If you can convince us to your plan is reasonable, it can happily return. Until then, I see no reason to have a separate article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seven years later, I still think this article and Nuri should be merged. They were the same event, even if they were two separate circulation centers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Bomb cyclone"...

...is a stupid colloquial phrase. Nothing physically distinguishes this system from any other extratropical cyclone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What about its being a meteorological bomb?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bombogenesis is a process (actually, an arbitrarily parametrized subset of a process) in the evolution of some cyclones, not an attribute. It's very much akin to naming this storm the November 2014 Bering Sea cyclogenesis cyclone or November 2014 Bering Sea dissipation cyclone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, bomb is an intensity attribute for extratropical cyclones that passed through bombogenesis, just like hurricanes, typhoons, intense cyclones, super cyclonic storms and such terms are intensity attributes for tropical cyclones that passed through cyclonegenesis. It's not exclusive for this article since we have other articles named "bomb cyclone" (January 2013 Northwest Pacific bomb cyclone), and we have to differ this cyclone from other november 2014 extratropical cyclones somehow.

Besides, we have other names for such storms that are even more stupid than Bomb, like superstorm, Perfect Storm and Storm of the Century. And unlike those, Bomb is a term well accepted and used by meteorological organizations, such as AMS, NOAA, JMA, etc. ABC paulista (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
2. we have to differ this cyclone from other november 2014 extratropical cyclones somehow - if this is the most notable November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone, then it gets the primary title. If it's not, there are plenty of ways to disambiguate it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Still, "Bomb" is a valid, official meteorological term and is a better way to describe the kind and intensity of the storm. Like I said before, "Cyclone" is a kinda vague term that cover numerous kinds of cyclones without being specific. 03:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, "bomb" is not an official meteorological term. It describes neither the kind nor the intensity of the storm; any cyclone (tropical or nontropical) can rapidly intensify, and knowing that a storm met the criteria for bombogenesis gives no indication whatsoever as to the peak intensity of the storm. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If Bomb isn't official, why meteorological agencies as JMA, OPC and NWS use it? It's even listed in NOAA's glossary.

And bombogenesis is a exclusive term to describe extratropical cyclones (tropical, polar and other kinds have their own terms). So yes, it's a way to classify the storm. ABC paulista (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Super typhoon" is also listed in the NOAA glossary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it was a official term until JMA took the authority for the northwest Pacific. But Bomb is on a different context, since it never suffered such change. ABC paulista (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While "bomb" does add to the title, it is an unnecessary adjective in this situation. What other cyclones of significance with articles occurred in November in the Bering Sea? Dustin (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to answer my question? Dustin (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2011 storm, and I think two others in the early 1900s. Bomb cyclone is only used for extremely powerful extratropical cyclones that undergo a rapid intensification in which the system's pressure drops 24 mbars or more within a 24-hour period. So storms like these can't simply be classified as just a "cyclone." LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1: Yes, I do believe they can be referred to as simply "cyclones". 2: I forgot to say "in November this year". Answer the question now, please? Dustin (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello? I don't see very good refutations of what I am saying, and I still believe that the "bomb" modifier should be removed. Dustin (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Image for the infobox

It appears that there is some difference of opinion as to which picture should be used in the infobox. Instead of just changing the picture repeatedly, let's try to establish some consensus. Here are the two pictures that have been used so far (the third, used in this revision is actually from a 2000 storm):

Proposed images for the infobox

• 
  The Japan Meteorological Agency’s MTSAT-2 satellite captured this image of an extremely powerful extratropical cyclone (which absorbed former Typhoon Nuri) over the Bering Sea at 22:32 UTC on November 7, 2014, shortly before its extratropical peak intensity.
• 
  Extratropical cyclone over the Bering Sea on November 8, 2014

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on November 2014 Bering Sea 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ20-RJTD_201411070000.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ20-RJTD_201411060000.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPN31-PGTW_201411060300.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ20-RJTD_201411061500.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109221342/http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/arctic-outbreak-coldest-season-20141105 to http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/arctic-outbreak-coldest-season-20141105
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wis-jma.go.jp/d/o/KWBC/Alphanumeric/Forecast/Shipping_area/20141110/053000/A_FZPN02KWBC100530_C_RJTD_20141110053047_38.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wis-jma.go.jp/d/o/KWBC/Alphanumeric/Forecast/Shipping_area/20141112/233000/A_FZPN02KWBC122330_C_RJTD_20141112233046_27.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wis-jma.go.jp/d/o/KWBC/Alphanumeric/Forecast/Shipping_area/20141113/173000/A_FZPN02KWBC131730_C_RJTD_20141113173045_19.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/P_sfc_full_ocean_color.png

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)