Talk:Cyclone Pam

NOAA Images

Can we get some of these NOAA images on the page?

https://twitter.com/search?q=cyclone%20pam&src=typd&mode=photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of those images are not NOAA Images and would be covered by copyright - besides which its worth just waiting and seeing what happens.Jason Rees (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I made an edit to this talk page suggesting images from NOAA. Someone deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey you acctully made the edit to Talk:Cyclone Pam (2015) which was not moved when the article was moved to just [{Cyclone Pam]]. I have moved your comments here now.Jason Rees (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Superlatives

The lead section, admittedly partially by my fault, is getting cluttered with a lot of superlatives. It's probably time to discuss what we should and should not mention, especially since we're now more sure of its peak intensity (it most certainly won't beat the intensities it had achieved yesterday UTC).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not difficult to solve at all. Editors could take a look at some mature articles and learn from them. However, the only problem is that most of current editors for tropical cyclones do not understand how to write a proper article. -- Meow 10:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring Meow's rant about most current editors not knowing how to write a proper article and getting back to the topic in hand. I think i will add some of the superlatives to the MH and remove some from the lead.Jason Rees (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Extreme Weather

I have now added the section five times, repeatedly removed or reverted: rkerver 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Pam is an extreme weather event. Since 2000, the average number of climate-related disasters each year has been 44 per cent higher than between 1994 and 2000 and well over twice the level during the 1980s, a data-based managed by Brussels-based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters shows .

It is an extreme weather event and must be cited as such. Please desist from the reversion of this edit. It remains an important contribution for the understanding of this cyclone.

I've already explained why this isn't being kept on your talk page. Please stop adding it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I dispute your contention that it is not relevant. Please stop deleting it or reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now it's majority against including it as @Jason Rees: agrees with excluding it. If you can offer a reasonable explanation as to why it should be kept, then please do. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that Pam is the second strongest tropical cyclone in the South Pacific and among the strongest in the entirety of the Southern Hemisphere. It is an extreme weather event, sure, but the information being added talks about the increasing trend of extreme weather events, which is more appropriate at the extreme weather article. Compare with the global warming section in the Hurricane Sandy article, which talks about these trends specifically in relation with the storm itself (like the unusual weather patterns that allowed for Sandy to track where it did) and isn't just a section on trends. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

rkerver: please suggest a friendly edit on this page that includes both the term "extreme weather" and the citation of the article provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As @TheAustinMan: said its clear that its an extreme weather event which means we do not need to tell the reader it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith editing on my part. I provided a necessary citation to common understanding and contextualization as "extreme weather". You must provide language and placement in the main article that includes both before I take futher action to insure my contribution remains intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No we don't as it isn't relevant to the article, which is shown by the comments made by several users and the reverts.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Weather events are a POV statement, they belong in an "analysis" section like Hurricane Katrina and global warming. In that article, only editors with wiki pages are given WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV statements. The SMH source is not a very good one, better source would be comments about Japan and other developed nations creating funds to help developing nations deal with natural disasters (Eg CS Monitor or worldbank Japan Times).

This material is DUE but belongs in a responses/future preparations section.-- Aronzak (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would accept placement in a section at the bottom. Exlusion of the term extreme weather, which is primary to my edit, is NOT acceptable. It fully contextualizes the storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The current UN conference in Sendai is World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction -- Aronzak (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has a sentence "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlighted that climate change leads to increased risks of natural disasters." Other discussion of climate change and this disaster should be careful to attribute opinions with the people who said them. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally i do not see anything bar a brief mention the Vanuatu President requesting international aid at the conference as relevant to this article on Severe Tropical Cyclone Pam. This is because at the end of the day the committed funds were agreed upon before March 6 and it is just coincidence that its happened in the middle of Pam.Jason Rees (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can add a clarification to that sentence on the funding pledge, but can you please leave it for now? Discussion of Pam at that conference is likely, in my opinion, to lead to further media coverage of responses at the conference, and it will become DUE. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I leave it as it is for now but i am not sure what you are hoping for and if it will turn up by the end of the conference.Jason Rees (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The World Bank VP IFRC articles today mentioning climate. More will come -- Aronzak (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

An additional reference for the article:

World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change Rachel Kyte agreed with the island presidents: "It is indisputable that part of the Pacific Ocean is much warmer today than in previous years, so these storms are intensifying. It's hugely ironic that this storm should hit Vanuatu while we are all here. If we truly care for those people, we have to respond," she said, referring to the need for environmental commitments.

The climate debate now happening is, for the rest of the world, one of the most interesting aspects of the Cyclone Pam. It needs to be treated as such. Thanks for understanding.

References

RfC: Extreme Weather

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The section above that prompted this RFC was included while determining consensus. But even with that discussion being included there is really no consensus on the question. The argument appear evenly split on the question of the sources used to include. AlbinoFerret 22:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the suggested citation as Extreme Weather be included? Rkerver (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) rkerver 15-Mar-2015

• Oppose @Rkerver: FYI, generally, a content dispute like this is not grounds to open a request for comment, especially when other editors are already commenting on it. In any case, I think it's not of much relevance to the article, as it is quite obvious that this is an extreme weather event (tropical cyclones in general are rather extreme weather, let alone a Category 5). If we're going to talk climate change, then we need more sources explicitly connecting Pam to climate change, and it would go into its own section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RKerver: if its obvious, then why object to the explicit assertion that it is "extreme weather"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs)

Because the fact that it's one of the most extreme tropical cyclones ever recorded in this area makes this redundant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll address the content issue bellow, but I want to note, as a procedural matter, that Jasper Deng's comment reading "FYI, generally, a content dispute like this is not grounds to open a request for comment, especially when other editors are already commenting on it." has no basis in policy; intractable content disputes of this nature are precisely why we have RfCs, and any contributor is free to avail themselves of that tool to break an impasse or simply solicit additional opinions. This is not in any sense a WP:SNOW issue, nor was Rkerver requesting outside further perspctives against a long-term an/or overwhelming consensus, so this is hardly an onerous or disruptive request. Don't get me wrong, there's certainly plenty indication that Rkerver is operating with an incomplete picture of both policy and how we conduct discussion in this space, but condemning them as having had no "grounds to open" an RfC is inaccurate and inappropriate. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 09:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I based my comment at least partly over Wikipedia:Canvassing, since consensus was already clearly against his addition above. Said consensus can change, but at the time I made this comment, that was what it was.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RcFs are not in any way canvassing; point in fact, they are the primary good-faith alternative to canvassing. Was the RfC strictly speaking necessary in this case? No, probably not, but the only consequence of RKerver requesting further outside perspective is that there is now more editorial attention for an article about the worst ecological disaster of the year thus far (and one of the worst in the modern history of the region). Most, if not all, are going to oppose the protracted statement he wants to add, but a lot of attention will be on the sources that pop up in this vein, which will only help our coverage be more comprehensive. In a way, the RfC is the one part about policy that he got right here. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 20:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – I agree with Jasper Deng's sentiment, for reasons that I have already stated above. To reiterate, Cyclone Pam may indeed be an extreme weather event, but until a direct connection between the increase in extreme weather and the very existence of Pam or its intensity in the first place is made, it should be in a different article like extreme weather, not Cyclone Pam. For example, if there's something along the lines of "A report from Example Organization indicated that global warming was directly responsible for x and y, which led to Cyclone Pam's record intensity. In addition, Example stated that Pam was a part of an increase in extreme weather.", then that would be included. The bit of information that is desired to be included currently states trends that don't explicitly mention Pam. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RKerver: the bar you set is very high and it'll never happen. "Climate change" is the statistical averaging of all storms over time and can not "prove" a specific data point or its placement on the data curve. The fact that world leaders are discussing it in the context of and with the words of "extreme weather" "Climate change" is sufficient for inclussion of a section dealing with it as part of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs)

Then it's not specific to this article and doesn't belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's most certainly true, and in the aftermath section you'll find a sentence that states Ban Ki-moon discussed the increase of disasters due to climate change. However, discourse about the trends in extreme weather is more appropriate at climate change or extreme weather. And while I admit "directly responsible" was a bit too far-fetched, making connections between individual storms and the effects of climate change has been done before. No one event is caused directly by climate change, sure, but there's certainly discussion about climate change's effects allowing storms to develop into the storms they end up being. See Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming, where scientists connected Sandy's high storm surge, unusual steering, and abnormal intensity to climate change's effects on sea temperatures and melting of sea ice. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Requiring a 'direct connection' is a heads I win tails you lose argument. Its a way of reframing the discussion so one side wins without providing logical reasons. No climatologist or climate scientist would ever say that global warming was directly responsible for x and y. Its simply the wrong question. Mrfebruary (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mrfebruary: I think you completely missed the point. By "direct connection", we need various sources that directly discuss this particular tropical cyclone as part of a longer-term trend of climate change. Look at Typhoon Haiyan#Climate change for what I'd like to see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support We have multiple reliable sources which have explicitly linked the topic of this particular event to the broader trends of climate change, and there's little doubt that the weeks and months ahead will only make sourcing in this area more robust. The question is not whether these sources are permissible (they clearly are), but rather how the claims sourced from them are attributed and contextualized. Looking at the dispute as it has played out above, it seems to me there must be some comprise wording here that is not being explored. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 09:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I should add that while reference to the event as extreme weather seems warranted, I also agree with the sentiment of TheAustinMan and others that the protracted quote in question is more approriate to articles on the specific topics of climate change and increasing frequency of such events. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 20:06, 19 March 2015 (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.

PNG

I removed PNG references, as there would be no physical way the storm would have had noticable winds over 1200 km away.

189.188.12.71 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) baden k.

But just for example, the swells generated by such a large system can easily reach that far. Take Hurricane Marie (2014) for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Some notes on PNG and Cyclone Pam:

The initial claim seemed a little incredulous to me, considering the low impact outside of Vanuatu, and the distance from PNG to the cyclone.

Investigating further, the uncorroborated claim (strong winds and rainfall) was all replicated only by Reuters and originated from a single individual in a single organisation:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Organization-for-Migration-IOM-in-Papua-New-Guinea/510228269058886

http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/news-and-views/press-briefing-notes/pbn-2015/pbn-listing/iom-teams-respond-as-typhoon-pam.html

https://www.facebook.com/510228269058886/photos/a.510239519057761.1073741832.510228269058886/794248283990215/?type=1&theater

NGOs are not unknown to enhance and fabricate 'disasters' to enhance their potential contributions. Furthermore, ignorance and superstition in developing countries often displaces logic and understanding.

The alleged death and destructions were reported on March 10 (11), and took place in Western New Britain, a province on an island north of PNG. Not only was Cyclone Pam in its formative stages (Class 1), but this location was on the lee side of the island and over 2200 km from the cyclonic centre. This was about the same distance as Brisbane was from Pam.

The reported weather for March 9, 10, & 11 for both nearby Lae, PNG, and Honiaria, Solomon Islands (about only one third the distance from the cyclone) was not abnormal, and Honiaria only had light winds and rain:

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/papua-new-guinea/lae/historic

http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/solomon-islands/honiara/historic

Considering the improbability the PNG events were caused by Cyclone Pam, much more rigorous substantiation would be needed to include them as fact.

189.188.12.71 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Baden K.

Regardless of what reliable sources are saying we have to be very careful with the PNG impact, because of Cyclone Nathan being located a lot closer to PNG than Pam ever was.Jason Rees (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind Nathan was much smaller than Pam, so it would have generated less waves. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes but our trackmap for Nathan and the BoMs charts basically show that Nathan developed just off PNG. All im saying is that we have to be careful especially since the Red Cross notes that there has been flooding in the country since March 4.Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that Pam probably didn't cause the floods in PNG. Here we run into a problem where it was reported, but now we need another source officially saying Pam didn't cause the death in PNG. Ideally, that would come in the form of a RC document saying where Pam caused deaths, or that the initial reports were wrong. I think the PNG should stay in until there is consensus otherwise. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am backing out from this one, as ignorance and stupidity once again prevail over common sense on Wikipedia. My next quest will be to prove that Santa Claus does not live at the north pole.

N.B., the same source noted that there were "44 deaths". Has this been officially retracted? Since when did truth require "consensus"?

189.188.12.71 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Baden K.

Cleanup/corroboration

Hi folks. I'm sorry to say I haven't got time to perform a comprehensive cleanup, but could someone please address the numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies on this page. Specifically, the claim that people were drinking seawater on Moso has been debunked, the number of houses affected is NOT 90% nationally, it is 90% of homes in Port Vila, the capital. There was never a point where only one communications tower was functional. The current official estimate of the affected population is 188,000, as of a press release issued to media today. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.210.214 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We'd be more than happy to assist in clearing up these issues if you could provide reliable sources for us. :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Pam. 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/WTPS11-NFFN_201503100600.htm

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Goni is now the most strongest storm in 2020

Goni is now the most intense in 2020 because Yasa lowered by FMS. Daniel boxs (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Information

Save girl child 2409:4051:2E9F:710A:8143:138D:B83A:6DE9 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)