Content deleted Content added
Jason Rees (talk | contribs) →JTWC 1 min winds: Reply |
→JTWC 1 min winds: Reply |
||
Line 84:
:::@[[User:MAS0802|MAS0802]]: The systems which are never numbered will never be released in post-season analysis tracks. Therefore, the current Invest track data is the only source for 1-minute wind for these unnumbered systems. So, the two possible solutions are either to leave all of them blank or to use the 1-minute winds in the track data as there is no other source I know of for 1-minute winds for these systems, so I prefer providing more information. Also, concerning the system's status, the track data suggests that they are in fact tropical depressions. Thank you! <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::You can argue that they were tropical depressions because of the tracking data provided by NRL etc but without a formal advisory or designation from the JTWC or the NWS stating such, we enter the territory of original research because of the way the infobox works. [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]]: I see why this would be a valid argument, and I will accept this conclusion. Two last things to note; 1. where is the peak intensity found on numbered systems provided by JTWC so that it would not be considered original research?; and 2. Wouldn't comparing numbers from the track data to find the highest wind speed count as [[WP:CALC]]? Just curious. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 00:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||