Talk:Cyclone Larry/Archive 1

Category
While Larry is a Category 5 cyclone on the Australian scale, it is deceptive to say the least to list it as a Category 5 here - on the Saffir-Simpson Scale, which the infobox links to, it is no more than a Category 3 storm. (US Navy site says 100 kt -> 115 mph.) — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:27 (UTC)

Australian Beauro of Metorology says winds around 290km/h. Easily a cat5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Meleager 23:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's category three on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Australia doesn't use the Saffir-Simpson scale. Shouldn't the reference be removed? QazPlm 23:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Australia uses wind gusts rather than sustained winds. The SS Scale uses sustained winds. It's definitely Cat 3; both the Navy site and Unisys agree. (I know, Unisys isn't always reliable, but it's better than nothing and is good backup for the Navy site.) — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:58 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no dispute that this is a Category 5 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Confirming this requires little more than a comparison of the relevant details, for example wind speed. 290kph/180mph gusts are indeed fitting of Cat 5. Hope this ends the dispute once and for all. I've made entries on the March 20 page and the 20 March 2006 Current events page. TydeNet 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Gusts have absolutely nothing to do with sustained winds. A storm can have sustained winds of 100 mph and gusts of 180 mph. That's why the Australian system is so flawed; it poorly predicts the strengths of tropical cyclones. Until we get solid data otherwise, this storm was only Category 3 on the SS Scale. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 01:02 (UTC)

I don't agree that gusts have absolutely nothing to do with sustained winds. They are not in proportion but we can estimate gusts based on sustained winds. NHC is also ralating the sustained winds to gust. You can see a tropical storm with sustained winds 35 knots will definitely be assigned a gust to 45 knots.

BoM estimates the strengths of tropical cyclones mainly based on T number, not gust. In this case, BoM assigned the T number of Larry to be 6.5 and the 10-minute averaged sustained winds to be 100 knots. According to my experience, the horrible figure of estimated wind gust is just to warn the public and is not the dominant factor to decide the cyclone severity. This is especially true for cyclones over water.

The wind speed reported in Innisfail was 108 knots and I would expect some stronger winds closer to Larry's center, so I guess it is a category 4 on the SS scale. Momoko

As an Australian i have to say that the system is not flawed. It is reported on CNN, The Age, Herald sun and the corier as a cat- 5 storm. Whilst you have valid arguments, one would imagine that these reputable news agencies would get it right.
 * News reporters and agencies don't have a clue what they're talking about. They see "Category 5" (which it was on the Australian scale) and read that. That doesn't make it a Category 5 on the SS Scale. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 02:14 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE - gusts ARE NOT sustained winds. The Saffir-Simpson scale uses sustained winds. The Australian scale uses gusts. Winds gusting to 280 km/h in AU could be a Cat 5, but 180 mph gusts are not uncommon in Cat 3/4 storms based on the Saffir scale. NSL E (T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-03-20)


 * Well then it would appear as though somebody messed up real bad on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale page, that stipulates 290kph winds indeed qualify for Cat 5. Sustained windspeeds are UNKNOWN at this stage however I will be keeping tabs on this as details come to hand. I think that the unanimous acknowledgement ot Cat-5 status by newsgroups is by itself justification; a few skeptical Wikipedians are by no means an authority on the matter. TydeNet 01:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this information is coming from the United States Navy (Joint Typhoon Warning Center) that puts its sustained winds in the Cat 3 range. NSL E (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-20)
 * There is no argument whatsoever that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology maintains a separate classification from the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. However, they're based on different measurements, one being peak gusts, the other being sustained winds. I've clarified that on the article page. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is why I don't like the Australian system - gusts are difficult to measure and very unreliable. The 915 mbar pressure is extremely low for a SS Category 3 storm though...I would have thought it was at least an SS Category 4. It all needs to be verified though... CrazyC83 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok when the storm made landfall it was a cat-5, however at about 8am (australian EST time) it was downgrades to a Cat-4. I have family up there and it is still pretty heavy up there and the swells are causing some large scale flooding. Either way it is still a big Storm.139.168.28.244 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we do not have an actual max. sustained winds number, I suggest we go with the popular media (CNN, BBC, etc.) We can't create our own news here. You might be right with the Category 3, but although even the Navy says so, I don't think we should use our own thinking to make this article -- instead, we should follow what all news agencies tell us. Maybe later on, when there is more proof, we can change it to a category 3. But for now, we don't want to confuse anyone who comes here seeing it as a category 3 and then going elsewhere (such as CNN) and seeing it as a category 5. I'm changing it back to cat.5 -Tcwd | Talk 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and on a side note-- maybe we can change the link on that "Category x" to some other link instead of the Saffir-Simpson scale one. -Tcwd | Talk 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea for now. The impact will be the next section being filled out and that is what matters to most people now, not the meteorological statistics. When better numbers are available, we can change it. I have a hard time believing the 115 mph figure myself due to its 915 mbar pressure - which would be a world record for that intensity. CrazyC83 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's Australian Category 5. The Saffir-Simpson category is still in heavy dispute and likely won't be settled for a while. The 915 mbar pressure suggests winds around 165 mph, but I know it wasn't that high due to the fact that gusts were only 180 mph. My guess (just that, a guess) is that the winds at peak intensity were about 145 mph, and they fell to about 125 mph at landfall as the eyewall was falling apart. I'd say it is an SS Category 2 now with about 110 mph winds based on descriptions coming out. CrazyC83 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverted to Category Three - link is to Saffir-Simpson scale. If there were to be a seperate mention of Cat 5 on Aussie scale, yes, but since it's not Cat 5 on Saffir's scale the link shouldn't read Cat 5. What you've suggested isn't possible directly, as it would involve changing the whole infobox template which would mess other cyclones up. NSL E (T+C) at 01:54 UTC (2006-03-20)


 * Yes, i understand the dispute about the Saffir-Simpson category. However, either way, we can't lower it to a Category 3 and then still have it link to the Saffir-Simpson scale.  I suggest keeping it category 5 on that page and then linking that to Tropical cyclone classification schemes instead, since we are unsure of where it would belong in the Saffir-Simpson scale, and the media says its category 5 (although not mentioning the scale).  I suggest we keep the number, but mentioning that it is from the Australian classifing system instead of trying to guess where it belongs on the Saffir-Simpson -Tcwd | Talk 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Per se, not a guess - we're taking the info from the JTWC releases and comparing it to the scale. But if we're to change it to Cat 5, the link needs to be changed too. NSL E (T+C) at 02:00 UTC (2006-03-20)


 * That's what I'm getting at. Keep it at category 5, since everyone (the media) is saying it was category 5, but obviously, we can't have that link to the Saffir-Simpson scale.  Perhaps we should create a new template?  -Tcwd | Talk 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The media is using the Australian terminology because they have no clue when it comes to tropical systems; they just read out what gets fed to them. They don't know that the SS Scale and the Australian scale are different. As long as it is noted in the article that the storm was Cat 5 on the Australian scale, we're fine. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 02:07 (UTC)


 * Alright, I guess.. I was simply suggesting somehow changing it to a category 5 AND linking to the page with the Australian scale instead of linking to the Saffir-Simpson scale. This way it would balance out the media's category 5 and the fact that it is not a Saffir-Simpson cat. 5.  But if you guys want to keep it the way it is now, its up to you; I was just suggesting -Tcwd | Talk 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the hurricane scale is hard-coded into, which is what makes it difficult to change scales. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:AySz88/Sandbox Okay to implement? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the double color would be confusing for a few users... however, you could just keep the color from SSHS and attach it to the second row too, similar to adding a line break and typing the second classification just below it. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Quickly changed, so I didn't implement it in the same way as the way suggested. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks ok. Move it to until we investigate if it breaks other pages, then we merge it with . Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and rushed out the door. :p Currently, it's still linked to subpages in my sandbox - don't want to overwrite Template:hurricane status yet. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this American News Article, Larry was a 4 on the SS scale. I've changed it accordingly. Please also take the time to measure the type of damage caused by larry and SS Cat4 on the SS page. Thank you and goodnight. TydeNet 08:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, throughout the article there's references to both Cat 3 and Cat 4. This needs to be sorted out as soon as we can. Does the Aussie BOM have an advisory archive? NSL E (T+C) at 08:49 UTC (2006-03-21)

Here's my comparative table for all of you to have a nice, long look at :). If you ignore this reasoning, I'll just have to call you names:
 * Okay, all of you listen to me very carefully. I'm hereby making my case that Larry was a Category 4 Cyclone (at very least) on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Unlike some of you, I've taken the time to check out the FACTS for myself. If another one of you reverts my edits I will dissociate myself from WikiProject Tropical Cyclones indefinitely.

Thank you, TydeNet 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is you can't make the article say "Category 4", and have a footnote to an article which clearly says it was a Category 3. If there is an article online which states the case for Category 4 as clearly as you have, then footnote that article (or your excellent summary), and make it a footnote for the "dispute".  I agree with you: it was in all likelihood a Category 4 storm at landfall.  But the footnote used (from a reliable source) does not support the text of the article.  New footnote can be used, and the difference in grading the storm can be noted.  -- TBadger 14:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Category is 100% based on winds. The rest of the description of a category on the SS is just that - a description. Not criteria. The ONLY criterion for a Category 4 is having sustained winds of 135 mph+. If no source states that Larry had sustained winds of at least 135 mph, it was not a Category 4 cyclone. Hurricane Katrina was only a Category 3 hurricane at landfall. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 21 March 2006 @ 21:51 (UTC)

I already have an article (American) claiming it was Cat 4. It's right [here. However, as you stated earlier, newsgroups are not an authority on the matter, are they? As for my friend [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]], well what can I say to you? You have gone against all sound logic and called me a liar because I can't confirm 10km/h of sustained wind. I'm unsure if you even know what logic is. To you, it's all cold hard data, with stupidty thrown in for free. Your level of intelligence sickens me. You've also failed to note the case for central pressure, which was on par with most Cat 5 storms. What you're proposing is this:

"A cyclone that brought about more than the effects and damages of a typical Category 4 storm and that had the Central Pressure of a typical Category 5 storm, is in fact a mere Category 3, simply because it's confirmed/measured sustained winds were 5 knots below the "cut-off" for Category 4."

Listen to me very carefully, sir. Beauty may fade, but dumb is forever. TydeNet 02:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say, you are all taking a very childish stance on this, especially you TydeNet. Sometimes Tropical Cyclones do not fit their categories.  It may have been a category three, it might have been category four.  To me, it is a moot point, the damage has been done, but whatever.  If there is doubt, in the spirit of wikipedia, it should remain stated as "Unknown" on the SS scale.  I can only hope that the NHC or some other authority on the SS scale will do some research into this. Runningonbrains 07:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Emergency phone number
(+61) 1800 100 188

Before any more edit warring over it occurs, I've reinserted the number because it is highly important for information purposes. Remember that part of Wikipedia's advantage over traditional encyclopedias is to give links to the appropriate resources necessary to connect people during an emergency, as shown by Hurricane Katrina, when we had listings of the live television feeds that were going on. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused
I'm very confused with this cycclone. The first time I accesed the page it said it was a Category 5 Storm, and now I access again, but this time the infobox says its a 3. So the question is, what is the actual category of this storm? juan andrés 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * at 7:30am AEST Larry crossed the coast at Innisfail, and is the strongest cyclone to cross Queensland's coast since 1918. At 12:30pm AEST Larry has been downgraded to a category 3 (Australian Scale) Tropical Cyclone and causing devastation to the Atherton Tablelands. Flash Flooding is feared. Other references to category 3 relate to a Hurricane System scale. (See Above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.4.236.77 (talk • contribs)


 * Basically, the Australian system of measuring the intensity of a tropical cyclone is different from the one more commonly used--the Saffir-Simpson one. Larry is a category 5 on the Australian system, but that corresponds to a category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.-Tcwd | Talk 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For confirmation, according to Seven news, the level of severity was a 5 as the cyclone was coming in off the coast. As it hit the mainland after covering the Barrier reef, it was said to reduce in ferocity and was then re-graded at a 3 as it was no longer as strong.  However, it was previously a 5.  As cyclones vary and fluctuate with intensity this is highly probable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikaaa  (talk • contribs) 07:43, 20 March 2006


 * Can I see where it said those were 290 km/h gusts? Most media outlets are unclear. Worse are American ones. Fox News calls it a Category 5 without specifying which country's rating system that is from. Good kitty 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps and Storm Track
This is a serious storm that is still effecting the Far North of Queensland. Can we get a storm track for these folks much like the ones we constructed for the North Atlantic?

Secondly, Tropical Cyclone Wati may be a well distance from the coastline but it would be ideal to put a track on that storm.

--Bushido Hacks 03:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too early to put up a storm track, as the Wikipedia-generated ones rely on the best-track data given after the storm has passed. However, I think you're talking about an impact probability cone, like the ones found here. If the Australian BOM provides them, we might be able to put them up. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I found one of those for Larry here. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good one. Does the BOM's Copyright Policy allow us to redistribute the image? It's a bit confusing. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, commercial use is disallowed, which hurts our mirrors and clones. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't talking about the cone, I was talking about the storm track that Larry took. Such as this one that was generated for Hurricane Katrina.  Perhaps a combination of both past locations and the cone if that is possible.  But for now, just the storm track. --Bushido Hacks 06:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you would need to talk to Jdorje about that, and I don't think he can do it until he gets the best track data... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there is no best-track data for the south pacific. If someone can find the advisory track data (in text format somewhere), I can make a track map out of it.  However this advisory data needs to include the sustained winds, which according to discussions above might not even be known. — jdorje (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is best track data for the region. According to the operational plan, Tropical Cyclone Warning Centres maintain a data base of tropical cyclone operational position forecasts and post-analysed best tracks. Also, they will archive information on cyclone tracks and intensities on magnetic tape or floppy disc and mail it to the US NOAA/National Climate Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, North Carolina, USA as soon as the finalized track data become available. However, it seems that the data are not released through the Internet. Momoko
 * Well then, there will not be a track map forthcoming for Larry in the foreseeable future. — jdorje (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Duration of cyclone season
I removed a statement cliaming that the cyclone hit two months after the end of cyclone season. This bureau of meteorology page states that cyclone season ends in May. -- Adz|talk 09:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be correct. Officially, the Australian season ends in May, and on the whole in the Southern Hemisphere it's 1 July – 30 June. NSL E (T+C) at 10:03 UTC (2006-03-20)

DRAT!!!
Congragulations!, you beat me by four hours in writing this article since I was looking forward in writing an article about this storm. Storm05 15:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you can still contribute! :p --AySz88 ^ -  ^  18:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Damages
Shouldn't the currency be Australian dollars in the 'damages' part of the info box, not U.S. dollars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.88.138 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 March 2006
 * I've changed it. The only source quoting a damage bill relates to the banana crop, so this will need to be updated when more figures are available. -- Adz|talk 07:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently the damages were reported as AUD$1bn so updated as nessecary, but I added the &asymp; cos I'm not sure what it was encompassing.--Tedd the Tiger 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Donations?
Are there any legitimate charities in taking donations for the recovery? 142.217.6.163 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Channel 7 was broadcasting a disaster recovery donation line, but I don't know the details. Will check their website for details.--Tedd the Tiger 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Queensland Government has established an Account with the Commonwealth Bank for people to donate to. Any donations over $2 are tax deductable. The details of the account are located at this Queensland Government press release
 * -- Adz|talk 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1800 150 411 is the telephone number to make donations.--Jeffro77 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

removed reference to blog
I have removed a reference to this blog for the following reasons: I'm not a meteorologis and I'm not going to get into the technical points of the discussion being conducted above over whether the Cyclone was a Cat3 or Cat4 on the SS scale, but I think given that it is a blog and that it seems to be making similar arguments to those being made above (ie. disputed arguments), it shouldn't be cited as a source. At least not until that dispute is settled. -- Adz|talk 09:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * firstly, it is blog, and it has already been stated elsewhere that blogs shouldn't be cited as sources
 * that said, I don't actually see a problem with citing a blog if it is was written by a credible authority, but other claims in this particular blog make me wonder what Dr Jeff Master's sources were:
 * the claim that this part of Australia is unused to severe tropical cyclones is inacurate (eg Cyclone Winifred)
 * the cyclone has cause hundreds of millions of dollars damage, not tens,
 * and Innisfail is not a popular drop off point for tourists going to the reef.
 * Jeff Masters is an ex-hurricane hunter meteorologist and an expert on hurricanes. He generally has reliable information, which is why I've used his blogs  somewhat-often as sources.  Apparently, in this case, he was wrong. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A blog as a source countering information from an official indepentent government agency
Since when is this an acceptable referrence? Xtra 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I raised the same issue earlier, which resulted in NSLE misusing administrator powers by blocking me for 15 minutes.--Jeffro77 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * AGF. NSL E (T+C) at 01:01 UTC (2006-03-23)


 * NSLE, you can't take controversial actions as an administrator (such as controversial blocking) and then hide behind 'assume good faith'. It may well be that you thought you were doing the right thing, but as an administrator, you should be prepared to discuss and justify your actions (see:Blocking policy controversial blocks - right towards the very bottom). Throwing up a three letter acronym (AGF) is not good enough.
 * Your blocking of Jeffro could be construed to have been "blocking to gain an advantage in a dispute". As an admin you should know this and you should have asked another admin who hadn't been involved in the issue to intervene. I believe that you should also have taken this step before blocking TydeNet above. I have raised this with you previously however you chose to delete my message from your talk page and responded with a brief reply which didn't address all the issues I had raised. AND proceeded to put a notice on your talk page saying that you would delete any messages you saw fit. These are not the actions one would expect from an open and accountable admin. You also removed messages from another user who had raised similar concerns.
 * In the case of TydeNet's blocking, while I agree that TydeNet shouldn't have resorted to personal attacks, I think the timeframe was excessively long to say the least, and I believe that due process wasn't followed - namely I think that whether Titoxd's 'warning' actually constituted a warning is questionable.
 * I feel that your actions in relation to (a) the blocking of both Jeffro77 and TydeNet, (b) your removal of messages from your talk page concerning the use of your admin privileges, (c) the degree to which you are prepared to discuss your actions with other users all deserve scrutiny.
 * I believe that you need to demonstrate that you are capable of exercising your admin privileges responsibly and make a commitment that you will do so in future. It is not in the interests of wikipedia to have unaccountable admins running around without following due process. Hiding behind "please assume that I blocked somebody in good faith" is not good enough.
 * I would have posted this comment on your talk page however you have protected it from editing because you want to go on a wikibreak. You have however continued to make edits to this page and other pages in that time. While you have invited me to email you (and I will when I'm on a PC I can email from), I feel that it is appropriate for dispute resolution be be conducted in the open where it can be done with a degree of accountability. Please feel free to reply on my talk page (or move it to your own talk page) if you wish, as I recognise that this isn't the best page on which to be conducting this discussion. -- Adz|talk 08:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)