Talk:Typhoon Goni/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Category

Er... Is typhoon Goni category five already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.181.139 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just became one at 06Z according to JTWC. JavaHurricane 08:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Typhoon Goni (2020) → Typhoon Goni – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, though it is debatable because Typhoon Goni (2015) also caused many deaths and $1 billion in damage. Goni 2020 likely caused 100+ deaths, though death toll comes out up to a week after the storm hit. The Philippines is currently a mess, with debris everywhere, and it will take a long time to make a full damage survey. In addition, Goni is the strongest tropical cyclone to make landfall anywhere in the world by wind speed. Furthermore, it was a powerful C5-equivalent typhoon that tied Typhoons Meranti and Haiyan as the strongest typhoon in the Western Pacific by wind speed. Also, to those saying its WP:RECENTISM, this storm is not like Haishen, which was also in a move discussion. That failed due to recentism. This will have long-lasting impact and notability due to the reason above.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The Typhoon Goni (2015) article is a GA, regardless of death/cost, and there's no primary topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not true Lugnuts. GA has nothing to do with it. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it says nothing about GAs. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lugnuts. Not because it's a GA, but because at the present confirmed levels, the 2015 storm's 74 deaths are much higher than the 20 from this one. It may well prove over the coming days that a primary topic is merited, but I don't see it yet. The 2015 storm was not just a minor gust of wind.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comment here. @Lugnuts: Having the (official) world record for landfall strength is not something that will go away; it makes Goni 2020 what future intense landfalling systems will be compared against.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support – Per Jasper Deng. Goni is the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone on record, in terms of 1-min wind speed. This is a hugely significant record, and the storm is likely to go down in history as a benchmark storm. And that is before we even consider the probable impacts of the storm (damage + deaths). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – The human impact far outweighs meteorological aspects when it comes to how most people remember weather phenomena. As of now, Goni 2015 remains more deadly/destructive. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL are at play here, contrary to the nominator's comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless this turns out to be retired/or a Haiyan 2.0 other Goni’s were just as destructive. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The odds of this being retired are close to 100%. I can't believe this ended up being Haiyan 2.0. All in for the move.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose—2015 caused 74 deaths and a billion in damage. That's a large gap for it to beat. Goni 2015 also wasn't retired. I still think that it isn't quite 2015 level. But, I struck my previous oppose because of ChessEric's comments. If damage comes out, I'd gladly support. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both storms caused significant damage and deaths. Perhaps this can be revisited in the future, but I think it's too early to say one is more important than the other. -- Calidum 21:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 2015 typhoon is also notable. The death toll from the 2015 typhoon speaks for itself. It is not up to us to judge which typhoon is more notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I think it's too early to say. Let us wait for the final numbers as it approaches Vietnam. As of now, the casualties haven't reached 2015 levels and the Philippines is the only country hit. I've added "weak" due to its record strength. HiwilmsTalk 04:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hold. A similar case pertaining to name Hurricane Felix, where the strongest storm of the name Felix is applied as the article title without a year. As a suggestion, the storm name Goni would have to be retired first. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm suggesting that we wait until it is actually retired. I used this argument all the way back to 2017, it failed horribly. Hoping to not repeat this again. SMB99thx my edits 07:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Records alone are not enough to warrant PT, as Goni (2015) still had more deaths and we still haven't assessed the full damages of the storm in the Philippines, given the ongoing lack of communication because of the storm's effects. As it stands, the total death count and damage to infrastructure (and we haven't even counted damages to private properties, since assessments are still ongoing) remain lower than that of the 2015 typhoon. Unless there is another argument other than "records", and also a better argument that doesn't assume Goni's deaths and damages, I'll be opposing. There's just simply not much making this article take more priority, importance, or notability than the 2015 typhoon. Chlod (say hi!) 10:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Same rationale as some people above: I think it's better to wait and see what happens before making a decision. If the storm name is retired then it may be considered notable enough to warrant a page move. ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong discussion
I saw in news Haiyan/Yolanda is still stronger than Goni/Rolly Stelotic (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC) oops wrong discussion Stelotic (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS. Assessing the primacy of a current-year storm is difficult and unreliable. This should be reviewed a year from now when this year's storm isn't current news. (Or if it is then the answer will be very obvious by that time). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel that we should wait and see what this storm does next. More detail is always better, and this typhoon has not even exceeded the 2015 typhoon in terms of deaths and damage yet. I am sticking to the majority vote. Liamyangll (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and majority vote. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The typhoon is significant and has shattered some records, but it has done less damage and caused less deaths compared to Typhoon Haiyan. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• This won’t be as catastrophic as Haiyan, where 6800 died. What’s a better comparison is 2015’s Goni. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed @LSGH:. ^. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Destroyeraa: I can't remember that typhoon myself, but while it was relatively weaker, its impact was much worse. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Well, there you have it. This year's Typhoon Goni is indeed remarkably strong, but it unexpectedly cause much less deaths and cost of damages than that of Goni 2015. "100+" deaths is certainly negative for this storm. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, as per WP:RECENTISM unless verified. It is too early to say that Goni was officially removed in the list of typhoon names. And if I may add, I'm from Philippines, and PAGASA was not yet officially announced the retirement of our given local name Rolly to our list of typhoon names, however they had to finalize everything for the said name to be officially decomissioned. We had to wait for the latest updates regards to both Goni and Rolly (I know this had nothing to do with the topic but I do noticed this already at some point), and same goes with Quinta. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 10:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Goni 2020 was MUCH worse than Goni 2015, and I am sure there will never be another Goni again. Plus, I've read recentism and all it says is "Don't say the Saxby Gale wasn't worse than Hurricane Bob". 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• excuse me, what? A typhoon that kills 74 and does a billion in damage is worse then one that does $25095 million and only kills 26. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is meant to say 295 million HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support I found this article which talks about what is looked at when considering retiring a name. See https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/natural-hazards-and-disaster-risk-reduction/tropical-cyclones/Naming Given the destructive nature of Goni, I support the change requested. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10 minute winds are 40 MPH yet 1 minute winds are 35 MPH?

how is that possible, for 10 minute winds to be greater then 1 minute? --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@WesternAtlanticCentral: per JMA and JTWC. The two met centers often disagree with each other. This has happened several times before, as with Atsani and weak systems. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wind speed records in Meteorological history section: JTWC over JMA?

Hello! I would like to raise a concern regarding how the Meteorological history section is written. I noticed that most, if not all, of the meteorological information included in this section are derived from the US Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) instead from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), which is the RSMC in-charge for the Northwest Pacific Basin. If I'm not mistaken, (1) meteorological information presented in articles on northwest Pacific tropical cyclones should, if possible, be primarily derived from the JMA, as the RSMC of the said basin; (2) the RSMC of the northwest Pacific basin is the JMA, so wind speeds should be primarily in 10-minute average, not 1-minute; (3) meteorological info from the JTWC are only intended for US government agencies, particularly the US navy, and are thus unofficial data for northwest Pacific tropical cyclones; (4) information from JTWC and other agencies (e.g. PAGASA, CMA, HKO, KMA, etc.) are added to supplement JMA info or as additional information.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm just concerned about the lack of information in the Meteorological history derived from JMA, since most info are from the JTWC and it appears like info from the JMA (and from the PAGASA, the agency for the mostly affected country Philippines) are being set aside over those from JTWC.

Thank you! —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

This is probably mostly due to the lack of detailed information from the JMA. Unlike the JTWC, the JMA doesn't provide the usual warning texts or human-readable prognostic information but instead just a table of current and future typhoon data and a cryptic analysis which only shows values. Or at least, these are the only JMA datasets that I could find from Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season and the JMA webpage. As for PAGASA, JMA takes priority over other agencies in reporting typhoon data and PAGASA reports 10-minute winds on their bulletins, so the JMA shrouds all data provided by PAGASA in this case. For this reason, PAGASA is only used for PAR entry/exit, landfall information, and storm signals. Personally, I'm more into using JMA data too, but if we did, we might risk the verifiability of the sources since someone not in the field of meteorology might find it hard to interpret the near-cryptic data dumps that JMA releases.
Someone should do something about the overused mentions of 1-minute winds, though. It's starting to make Goni look like an EPac/Atlantic typhoon. Chlod (say hi!) 05:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: JMA actually does issue prognostic reasonings (e.g. here for Atsani) but they're nowhere as detailed as the JTWC reasonings. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@KN2731: I do know that JMA issues reasonings. I just happened to label it as a "cryptic analysis" above. And like you said, still not as detailed as JTWC's. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Chlod (say hi!) 12:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chlod: I really agree with you. JMA should take precedence in articles on northwest Pacific tropical cyclones. I do know the fact that JMA does not give warning texts or prognostic reasoning compared to JTWC, but, at the least, the wind speed records (and other obtainable meteorological info) should primarily be taken from JMA, the RSMC of the NW Pacific. Inclusion of JTWC 1-minute winds should only be supplementary or for additional info. Yeah, I agree with you that this article on Goni now sounds like Goni is an NE Pacific / N Atlantic tropical cyclone. As for other meteorological information (e.g. explanation of the TC's development), I'm okay with taking info from the JTWC since the JMA, as you have said, does not publish such kinds of info. But wind speeds records, at least, should be primarily from JMA (in 10-minute ave) not from JTWC (in 1-minute ave). —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

Yeah a little too much ramble about JTWC's findings. Like it's the USA protruding all over the world...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you mean that the records should only be for JMA speeds, that's not really the case here. The record for "strongest typhoon by 1-minute winds" is a global record. This isn't restricted to a certain part of the world where the RSMC takes measurements by 1-minute winds. The JTWC is being used here because 1-minute winds since the JMA does not publish calculations for 1-minute winds. Since it broke the record specifically for that measurement, the multiple mentions of Goni breaking the 1-minute wind record is expected.
In any case, I've added the landfall 10-minute winds from both JMA and PAGASA. Hopefully this will slightly add more significance to their measurements than the JTWC's. Chlod (say hi!) 16:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The other thing here is that the JMA (stupidly) only has one category, "typhoon", for an extremely wide range of intensities, so the story of the storm is easier to tell by referring to SSHWS categories. Nonetheless, I do think everything but the upgrade to Category 5, the peak intensity and record, and maybe the rapid weakening should be the only JTWC figures we mention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of lower pressure

There is a little bit of evidence that Goni’s pressure was 881MB ShibaInuDog2012 Weather (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShibaInuDog2012 Weather: Like most things on Wikipedia, we'll need a source for that. And if it's not from the basin's RSMC (the JMA, in this case), then we won't be including it. Chlod (say hi!) 17:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The EU has a pressure of 876 mBar, and Force Thirteen(unreliable) gives it 881 ~ARay10 :) 🌀 21:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@ARay10: It looks like the Severe Weather Europe source takes its data from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, the incorrect data source for pressures in this basin, while the Force Thirteen source is, as you have said, unreliable. Please note that we don't focus on JTWC statistics and data for Northwest Pacific storms, and that we don't use the JTWC's data over the JMA's — primarily because it is the RSMC for the basin. Since WPTC consensus is to follow the RSMC's data, with other sources being used only for the statistics that the RSMC does not provide (such as 1-minute wind speeds for the JMA). As such, we can't admit this lower pressure into the article, otherwise it would be using unofficial data even in the presence of official ones. Chlod (say hi!) 22:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References