Talk:Accumulated cyclone energy

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).

Subpages by year: Atlantic • E. Pacific • W. Pacific • N. Indian • South
Subpages by ACE: Atlantic • E. Pacific • W. Pacific • N. Indian • South

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Extension of WPAC ACE section

The Western Pacific section only has the years since 1950 and I was wondering if the section could be expanded to include individual storms. Some of them may be outdated, I know, but it is really necessary. tai (he/him) (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACE v 'power' /'energy'

Is there any viable calculation as to the power output of a cyclone versus say a volcano or earthquake. I would like more data on how Mother Nature is hugely bigger than most 'human' activities. The typical diagram for 'energy' has 'large lightning' and a storm has thousands; often with has Mt St Helens and 'one day of a hurricane'. This is kind of vague. Suggestions please.NojokingHELP (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, before answering your question, I’d like to note that these talk pages are typically used to promote discussion on how to improve and change the articles they correspond to, rather than trivial knowledge like the energy output of a volcano to that of a hurricane. Furthermore, I imagine that people may be confused with your query, especially as you haven’t linked the page that caused your confusion, and have possibly worded your query in a confusing manner, so providing more context would be great. I’m not an expert, and cannot satisfy your curiosity, but there are various resources on the internet at your disposal which you can use to reach out to actual experts in the field, rather than using talk pages on Wikipedia that are not necessarily used for answering questions. Don’t take this response too harshly, just know there are probably better places to search for an answer to your question. -Shift674-🌀^contribs 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

I could have attached the same query to some dozen or so 'relevant' pages - you imply that this too would be unsuitable- so the question must be unasked and the power of mother nature will remain an unanswered query. I have attempted to ask 'experts' but often you need to prove your credentials before they will respond ... rather than merely a significant interest. Any suggestion as to where to ask would be gratefully received. I will then delete this string (if possible)NojokingHELP (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reached out to the National Hurricane Center’s website before, and that’s worked out well for me. Perhaps they or another government agency could answer your question. Also, I wouldn’t recommend deleting this thread unless it proves necessary, we usually archive these. -Shift674-🌀^contribs 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give NHC a go. Thanks. and then i'll work out which sites to edit?! NojokingHELP (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wpac should be 17 ns and not 19 ns, Maliski and Wukong were not ts force, and not named by the jtwc, the season should be 17, like 2010 was like 18 or 19 instead of 21

All im saying 2600:1004:B1A5:6FBE:6DC4:62E5:52F7:4F89 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your own views about Maliski and Wukong's intensity, however, Wikipedia has to follow the JMA, which as declared Maliski and Wukong to be tropical storms/named storms.Jason Rees (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT ACE

@Jasper Deng: What is the issue with using official data calculated by NOAA/NHC themselves for the ACE? CSU’s data is several points behind even with the BT updates, and NOAA’s data should have far more weight put on it then CSU’s after the HURDAT data is released. The best examples of this are the big discrepancies with 2005 and 2023’s ACE, which CSU has listed as 245 and 145 vs NOAA’s 250 and 139 (which are cited on the season page itself). Clearly, something is wrong with CSU’s total, and I don’t think this counts as OR at all. In fact, even with the HURDAT reanalysis in the older seasons, CSU’s data is still off by several points in some of the seasons which raises the question of using them post-analysis. Additionally, I’ve scoured the project but cannot find any consensus that said we can’t use HURDAT data for ACE. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did NOAA directly calculate it? I'm in favor of this but the projectwide consensus was not to calculate our own based on NOAA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It comes directly from their own site (sourced in the edit I made and is also sourced in the individual seasons) so I’m pretty sure they calculated it themselves, especially given how they revised some of the older seasons through reanalysis. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]