This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Oceania 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.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
oceans,
seas, and
bays 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.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
Aral Sea; check
La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
MS Estonia
When adding articles, I've been mentioning tropical depression, tropical storm, and typhoon status being achieved when JMA made the upgrade. The problem is what to do for super typhoons. Technically, since JMA uses a 10-minute average sustained wind, their maximum sustained winds are a bit lower than the 1-minute average used by JTWC. I've been using JTWC for super typhoon status similar to what I've seen used in other articles...but am beginning to question this philosophy since they are not a regional warning center like Japan. What do you all think?
Thegreatdr 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)reply
As far as I'm aware the reasoning for the JTWC was when these articles were being created that was the source that was used. I don't think it is correct, but there's inertia against changing things now. As we have become more aware we have realised the problems this causes, for instance with
Cyclone Monica the JTWC data didn't merely disagree with the BoM on "sustained winds" but on central pressure too.--
Nilfanion (
talk) 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)reply
We deal with this problem in the NWS as well. Technically, we have to use the JMA information when available since they're a designated tropical cyclone warning center and JTWC is not. JTWC is just for U.S. Navy use and no longer has the ability to name tropical cyclones as of a few years ago, so I doubt they can be realistically used.
Thegreatdr 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)reply
One thing I'm less clear on is what happens with older storms,
Typhoon Tip for example. There are subtle differences between the JTWC and JMA best tracks, but when Tip occured the JTWC was the responsible body. Is the JMA best track the official one? I have a feeling the only correct solution is to not use JTWC data at all if JMA data exists for recent seasons, and depending on the official status in the past the same story. (Ditto the Southern Hemisphere...)--
Nilfanion (
talk) 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that makes sense, for the most part. Realize that JMA uses a 10-minute wind average though, so their wind speeds appear lower, even if their 10 minute sustained wind value is equivalent to the JWTC/NWS 1-minute maximum sustained wind. They will rarely, if ever, appear to "reach" the magic 130 kt maximum sustained wind that is used to declare a system a "super typhoon." The
conversion from 10 min to 1 min winds is a 14% increase.
Thegreatdr 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
That windspeed reference is very useful IMO. Actually what I was referring to is more that they disagree on pressure. For example at
Typhoon Imbudo was assessed to be at 945 by the JMA and 910 by the JTWC at
2003-07-21 0000 UTC. These sorts of variations are typical from what I see and there is also subtle differences in the location. The question is for an older season, say 1980, is the
JMA best track or the
JTWC best track that is authoritative?--
Nilfanion (
talk) 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
For now, we're probably safe with JTWC before 1999. There is a movement to do a Pacific tropical cyclone reanalysis, but it will require significant coordination between ALL the western Pacific warning centers. It will take years to accomplish, perhaps a decade. We're closing in on 10 years of the Atlantic Basin's reanalysis.
Thegreatdr 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
No, it should be an FA class. However at this time it is clearly a stub, it needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--
Nilfanion (
talk) 09:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Todo
I've added all the storm names in to the article, now all they need are storm summaries, which I've started. Then it will be a start class. From there, I'll try to get track maps from Jdorje and storm pics.
íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
It seems we're still missing at least 2, possibly 9, systems. I added some details to the systems that had little or nothing to their summary. I'll look around for the others.
Thegreatdr 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Nevermind. The missing named storms were gone due to a reference coding error. Oops. Changed class from stub to start.
Thegreatdr 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
2003 Pacific typhoon season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ATCR":
From
Tropical Storm Linfa (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003).
2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report(PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 82–91. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
From
Typhoon Krovanh (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003).
2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report(PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 174–187. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
From
Tropical Storm Morakot (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003).
2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report(PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 148–157. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
From
Typhoon Kujira (2003): Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003).
2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report(PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. Retrieved 6 October 2013.
From
Tropical Storm Koni: Furze, Peter; Preble, Amanda (2003).
2003 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report(PDF). JTWC Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (Report). Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Joint Typhoon Warning Center/United States Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center. pp. 118–131. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡ 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)reply
"Though the season ran year-round, the first storm to develop was Yanyan west of the Marshall Islands on January 15." - I'm not sure I like the wording of this sentence. Was the first storm named "Yanyan west of the Marshall Islands on January 15."? Also, what's with the "Though" at the beginning? Basically the first part is proved by the second part. My suggestion: "The season ran year-round, with the first storm, Yanyan, developing west of the Marshall Islands on January 15."
"Maemi was also the most intense tropical cyclone of the season with a minimum barometric pressure of 910 mbar (hPa; 26.87 inHg)." - Mbar, hPa, inHg. What's all of that? :P
Done - Linked the meteorological abbreviated jargon. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"Pacific basin are assigned a name by the Tokyo Typhoon Center." - Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the
Joint Typhoon Warning Center that assigns names? If you do replace the Tokyo Typhoon Center with the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, remember to wikilink it and include the abbreviation (JTWC), since it goes unexplained later in the article.
Ok. Since you are not going to wikilink
Joint Typhoon Warning Center, then put it here instead, "The JTWC also issued warnings on storms within the basin,".--
12george1 (
talk) 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The number of typhoons and intense TCs in the TSR forecasts table do not match the infobox.
✗Not done - The TSR based their verification on what the JTWC tracked, so I added a note. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"In 2003, the JMA monitored 21 tropical cyclones of at least tropical storm intensity; of those, 14 reached typhoon intensity. [...] (PAGASA) monitored three additional cyclones of at least tropical storm intensity that were not monitored by the JMA.[1][14][15]" - I'm confused here despite the fact that I am a WPTC member. :P I counted 22 TCs that reached tropical storm intensity. Since there were 24 named system overall (21 official, 3 unofficial), wouldn't that leave only two additional cyclones at tropical storm intensity that weren't monitored by JMA?
Done - The timeline is based off of the JMA, which did not consider Batibot, Lakay, or Zigzag as tropical storms. Lakay was incorrectly labeled as a TS on the timeline, so I fixed that. TheAustinMan(
Talk·
Works) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"Typhoon Etau earlier in the month made landfall in Japan, resulting in 17 deaths.[15][21]" - Wikilink
landfall
Shouldn't "conducive" be "conductive"?--
12george1 (
talk) 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"A tropical depression developed on August 2, and gradually intensified while moving to the northwest, becoming a tropical storm on August 3 and a typhoon a day later." - No location mentioned. Did this TD happen to form near Antarctica?!? :P
"On September 5, former Hurricane Jimena crossed the international date line into the basin." ---> "On September 5, former Hurricane Jimena crossed the International Date Line into the basin. "
Alright, that should be it. I look forward to passing this article. :) --
12george1 (
talk) 20:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, great job TheAustinMan. :) I am now going to pass this article and list it as a Good Article. Congratulations,--
12george1 (
talk) 02:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on
2003 Pacific typhoon season. 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: 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.