Talk:Typhoon Bopha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Typhoon Bopha (2012))

Low latitude intensity records[edit]

It looks like Typhoon Bopha is going to shatter latitude records for the lowest forming Catagory 3 and 4 Tropical Cyclone on record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playerstroke (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite shattering. Typhoon Sarah in 1956 reached C3 equivalence at 4.9ºN. We should keep an eye out to see if it set any records though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Playerstroke (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Defiantly because this storm is predicted to become a C4 storm at very low latitude. This storm is a real odd-ball.[reply]
Playerstroke (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC):::Playerstroke (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)I think Bopha has just broken Typhoon Sarah's intensity records. Pressure is 945 and ten minute wind-speed is 90 Knots at 4.7 degrees north.[reply]
Playerstroke (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Here is the JMA's latest advisory to prove it.[reply]
We need someone like Jeff Masters or someone reliable to prove that Bopha is the strongest typhoon south of 5ºN, something like that, or else we can't put it in the article. Even if we know it is true, we need someone else to say it explicitly. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Playerstroke (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)I agree with that. I think we need to update the advisory information now.[reply]
Playerstroke (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Tropical Storm Risk.com has Bopha at Cat 4 strength.[reply]

I removed the statement from the lede, saying it was the strongest storm between 5N and S, as we need someone to verify it. By the way, your signature should go at the end of your comment :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Joint Typhoon Warning Center has reported that Bopha has intensified into a Super Typhoon.[1]Playerstroke (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(comment)-It did formed in a very low Latitude-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ Talk Contribs 12:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it also be the only low-latitude cat 5..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UploaderBabe (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peak intensity image discussion[edit]

When Bopha dissipates, we have to hang out the peak intensity image. However the peak intensity image of Bopha at 935hpa shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bopha_Dec_2_2012_0145Z.jpg isn't in good color shape, and quality. Since this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bopha_250m_Dec_1_2012_01.05_(UTC).jpg also shows the storm at category 4, and is in good quality, and in high defination showing the whole system's convection, and in natral color, and shape, i suggest we hang up the Dec 1 image of Bopha.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ Talk Contribs 05:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, based on the JTWC best track data, Bopha never reached category 5 status. (here) — Ines(talk) 12:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, big mistakes folks, i was thought i typed 4, but thanks for the correction! Comments please!-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ Talk Contribs 13:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, this VIIRS image is going to be used in this case, because both MODIS instruments failed to capture this system at peak intensity. By the way I'm trying to install a program that'll correct the color issues, but the quality of those files are much better then the official images for further reference. Supportstorm (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In the news" nomination[edit]

Let me note that I have nominated this article for the front page news, at WP:ITNC. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image edit war[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of this edit war is about... the differences seem quite small and trivial to me, so if I'm missing something, by all means, please point it out. Either way, the reverting has to stop... it's not helping anything. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person just kept replacing good and simple information to crappy information. I was just saving Wikipedia from his destruction, but he never realised why his has been reverted many times. Poor him. Although he believes that he won, he actually lost. -- Meow 05:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if you think you're right, take it to the talk page and explainto him why you were reverting it. If you don't even say why you're doing so in the edit summary, how is he supposed to know? Inks.LWC (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning[edit]

I'll second what Inks has written above. Please stop the warring immediately; kindly consider this as the last warning before I start imposing increasing duration blocks on the reverting parties. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite loop, Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Cyclonebiskit, thank you very much for adding that loop! Mind if you can find a infrared one, not enhanced, or even a infrared/visible loop? --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. It'd also be hard to create a new one now that the image source has updated. Supportstorm (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peak image[edit]

This Black and white image-should it be used for the hang up of the peak intensity image? Bopha was at roaring peak intensity at the time the image was taken, using different light waves to make it look nighttime visible.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do-yea know. You uploaded a duplicate. Plus I prefer to have a colored image as a main image, but I wouldn't mind including it in the article some where. Please check next time as they are essentially the same image. Supportstorm (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... color images look better. Plus the image from Earth100 looks like it has been edited to have less contrast than the original image. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No he uploaded the original, I corrected the contrast in mine to make it more visually pleasing. Supportstorm (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually checking the metadata it was altered with Paint.NET, but it doesn't really matter. Supportstorm (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also corrected the contrast, but not as much as Supportstorm But Jason Rees, and the guidelines says that it should use peak intensity images. Hey, why not request Supportstorm to color his image, as sup's images usually look better than me. Besides, the current image isn't even in true color.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any recent article where color images have been available that we haven't used a color image. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't color anything besides the AVHRR images at the moment, because my HDD crashed about a month ago and I can't re-download those lost files from the EO for some reason. The current image is the closest we have to natural color without having NASA's code and original file source, just saying. Supportstorm (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Com'on coloy the peak intensity image. no mater, what, the article must have a peak intensity image.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of articles with images near, not at, peak intensity. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for me to do so at this time. Supportstorm (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. This one should be fine. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I was talking to Earth100 about coloring images. Supportstorm (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I'm saying you don't need to color any images, because we already have a color image that we can use. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright :) Supportstorm (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, Supportstorm, please color up, as we need the peak intensity image, and besides, the image Inks.LWC said was okay, is not okay, because it isn't even in high quality, and color. Don't forget it people, peak intensity images is the image not the weaker one.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want "high quality", then here's a larger version of the image: [2]. And peak intensity images are NOT required. We have plenty of articles with near peak intensity images. How would he even go about turning the grayscale image into color? Inks.LWC (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the situation is WE have a peak image. Since the image you suggested is in poor color, why not just put a color background on it? Supportstorm can do that!--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use to, but like I said above, my HDD crashed. I had the blue marble images at 500m resolution that were lost when that happened. I'm having problems downloading anything past a few megabytes on the Visible Earth website. So until I can locate another source for those files you're out of luck.Supportstorm (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement of "Pablo" by PAGASA[edit]

A couple editors keep putting in a section saying that PAGASA has retired the name "Pablo". I have done several Google searches and have been unable to find anything to back that up. Please keep speculative claims off the page; we should only have verified facts on the page. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably doing that because its obvious. --UploaderBabe (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not obvious because it hasn't happened yet. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While i know it meets PAGASA's criteria for retirement per the NDRMMC death toll, we have to wait until we have a source that explicitly states that it has been retired until we can naming, until we have a source that confirms the retirement.Jason Rees (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced warning systems failure[edit]

NOAA issued a final advisory (signed Simpson), 8:00 PM CHST Mon Dec 3, reporting the BOPHA's "eye" moving toward Southern Philippines with sustained winds of 130 MPH, and still over 300 people die, and there have been problems with evacuation. What might be the source of advanced warning failure. If we are to expect more such violent weather from current climate change, will quantum computing enable better prediction such that authorities can spare such pain and death?Kdarwish1 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)kdarwish1[reply]

NOAA/NWS Guam does not warn the Philippines. You can blame PAGASA for that, which only began warning 42 hours before landfall (and with winds of only 95 knots, compared to JTWC's one-minute winds of 140-155 knots). -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be very careful here before attributing blame. While PAGASA didnt start the issuance of full advisories until 42 hours before landfall because of where PAR lies, i personally saw that they and the NDRRMC were warning people within their normal bulletins that Bopha was on its way in. According to this article on the GMA News website Compostela Valley officials didnt heed the warnings so that could be to blame for some of the deaths and damages. However we have to be bloody careful before attributing blame for Bopha's death toll on to anyone.Jason Rees (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, but am not addressing human element of advanced warning system, am trying to determine if we will have the technological capability, from quantum computing on say graphene (dirac fermion)-based super high-speed semi-conductive processor chip, to more accurately predict well in advance the emergent behaviour of chaotic patterns like Sandy and Bopha. This is intended to share and invite intellectual perspectives that may lead to breakthroughs in our dealing with possibly (probably) increased frequency of such violent weather that could be product of climate change. By the way, text of NOAA Simpson's report available at http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpq31.pgum.tcp.pq1.txtKdarwish1 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)kdarwish1[reply]
The forecasters have models that are run on powerful computers that help...well, model what is possible with the storm. Regarding Sandy, I remember seeing some models (I think even before it actually was designated) depicting the situation that would eventually unfold: sub-950 mb pressures at landfall in New England, and the combination with other weather events. So, yes, there are powerful-enough computers. -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kdarwish1, while your intentions to lead to breakthroughs in dealing with violent weather are noble, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
143.85.199.242 concluded above that "yes, there are powerful-enough computers."... to more accurately predict well in advance the emergent behaviour of chaotic patterns. This latest turn of events in Bopha's case perhaps indicates otherwise, yes?Kdarwish1 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 7 impact?[edit]

Currently it is 1:12 pm December 8 in the Philippines, but no one has provided a sub-article on December 7 giving details yet. How come? The article just stops at December 6, whereas even I am aware that Bopha has re-strengthened to a category 3 and heading northeast, with a potential hit for the northern area of the country. Someone needs to get on the ball and remember that this is a current event, and information needs to be updated rapidly.Stopde (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to update it... Inks.LWC (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read about the edit wars up above, so I do not want to get involved. The edit-warriors can update it. Stopde (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the edit warriors is not longer editing the page, so I think you're good now. But you can't really tell other people to "get on the ball" if you're unwilling to do so yourself. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look in a mirror when typing what you just did, as I do not see that you improved the article any. Stopde (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've made contributions to the article; 2) more importatnly, I'm not demanding that others make contributions. I never told anyone to "get on the ball". Inks.LWC (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you have not contributed to providing information on the December 7 impacts. Either put up or shut up -- hypocrisy is not a very flattering thing for you.Stopde (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't, because I'm busy trying to fix the references in the meteorological history section right now. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unlike you, Inks.LWC actually improves things on wikipedia. Not trying to attack you, but looking at your contributions I noticed that most of what you do is try to tell people what to do on talk pages. You are in no position to tell people what to do or to tell them to shut up. Remember, you started this discussion. If you didn't want Inks to jump on you then you shouldn't have jumped on others. United States Man (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are unaware of something called a "current event". In a current event, information changes rapidly, and someone was not updating that information, as some people were using this page as a reference for safety. I guess you do not care about people that end up injured from hurricanes and severe weather, because you adhere to the belief that pages should be updated slowly, and only after an event is over, instead of while the event takes place. Please update your opinions, because that condescending attitude is not welcome on wikipedia. I have done more edits on wikipedia than you could imagine, all you are doing is whining about talk pages. You would do wikipedia a greater service by logging off. Stopde (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References for meteorological history[edit]

I've done some sorting through the references for the Meteorological History section. Unfortunately most of the references for events after November 30th were put there to cover up original research, or they were just general links to satellite images and storm tracks without any actual information about the storm. So I've removed everything that was unusable, and placed cn-span tags so that it's easier to differentiate between what is referenced and what is not. Unfortunately, I now have to go to work, so I'll have to leave it a bit messy (but at least no references is better than false references). Inks.LWC (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtph20.rpmm..txt contains an update on BOPHA and request from Manila for local monitoring.(talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the references, supplying title, publisher, work, date, etc. information for all references currently on the page. As far as I can tell, all references now use some sort of cite template. I've also removed some unsourced information that was not mentioned in the sources, and I've removed a couple unreliable or unapplicable sources as well. The biggest place now needing sources is middle to end part of the meteorological history. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the textual "data" reports available from http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/?C=M;O=D with selecting "Last modified" at top of column to order accordingly, and seems NOAA designated BOPHA files by the number 20, upto this morning, but also files on Claudia are designated by number 20. Kdarwish1 (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the raw files on that NOAA site change often. Fortunately, members of the WPTC archive all of these advisories just for this purpose. Head to the main article's talk page to find them. -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JTWC prognostic reasonings[edit]

For reference and expansion.

01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // 06 // 07 // 08 // 09 // 10
11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20
21 ? // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 29 // 30
31 // 32 // 33 // 34 // 35 // 36 // 37 // 38 // 39 // 40
41 // 42 // 43 // 44 // 45 // 46 // 47 // 48 // 49 // 50
51 // 52 // 53

--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 03:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move to Typhoon Bopha[edit]

With over 900 deaths i really think we should look at moving this article to Typhoon Bopha, since it seems obvious that Bopha will be struck off in late January.Jason Rees (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty[edit]

I suggest that the casualty should be added especially in the infobox. Death toll= Injured= Displaced families=

Although there is on final count yet and day to day may varies from different sources. I do recommend the report of the NDRRMC in case of the Philippines (PAR) Bonvallite (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death toll is already in the infobox, while number of injured might not be that great to add since theres no real control over what constitutes an injury in a TC (does a bruised knee count? or how about a paper cut?).Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Typhoon Bopha. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

[3][4] [5][6][7] Copyright violations, tagged as such in the article. If someone wants to address this, I will wait 24 hours before I remove the content. Otherwise, please do not revert. Sennecaster (What now?) 22:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed now. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo[edit]

Epicenter ng bagyong pablo 112.205.81.13 (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 April 2023[edit]

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Bopha → Typhoon Bopha (2012) – a new bopha as good name 112.209.26.43 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Bopha (disambiguation) → List of storms named Bopha – new list you not need a disambiguation 112.209.26.43 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 112.209.26.43 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The provided rationale isn't very clear, but if my interpretation is correct, it seems to be claiming that this storm isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Typhoon Bopha". If this is the nominator's argument, I don't think it holds up. Typhoon Bopha (disambiguation) shows that no other storms called Bopha have been classified as typhoons, let alone typhoons notable enough to have standalone articles. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name Bopha was retired due to this storm, which combined with the damages and death toll makes this the primary topic. — Iunetalk 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Bopha&oldid=1211237801"